Document rBqRwEmLzxQzvvDO57Xvp4d30

T4 NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCIL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. VS. OWENS-CORNING F1BERGLAS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT GARLOCK INC'S DESIGNATION OF FACT AND EXPERT WITNESSES COMES NOW, Defendant Garlock Inc and makes and files this Designation of Expert and Fact Witnesses in the above-entitled and numbered cause, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted. BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE, A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS KENNETH S. WALL STATE BAR NO. 20756790 MELISSA K. FERRELL STATE BAR NO. 06937020 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone: (713) 529-3110 Fax: (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GARLOCK INC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the court and plaintiffs counsel via certified mail, return receipt request and via regular mail to all other known counsel of record on this day of /l/S* ^ . 1995. Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219-4257 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 2 GARLOCK INC'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT AND FACT WITNESSES GARLOCK is uncertain at this time as to which witnesses may be called. However, defendant anticipates that it will call the following witnesses: 1. CARL MANGOLD, C.I.H. Mr. Mangold is an industrial hygienist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 2. ROBERT GAY, PhJ>. Mr. Gay is an environmental consultant and chemist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 3. HENRY J. SILVERMAN, M.D. Dr. Henry J. Silverman may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes. 3 asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease alleged suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiffhas a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Silverman's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 4. HANS WEILL, M.D. Dr. Hans Weill may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature 4 and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Weill's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education, and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 5. ROBERT SAWYER, M.D. Dr. Robert Sawyer may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in die plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of caner issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Sawyer's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 6. TERRENCE MOISAN, M.D. Dr. Terrence Moisan may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. 5 He may also testily regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testily on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testily on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testily on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiffhas a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testily on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Moisan's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 7. STANLEY FIEL, M.D. Dr. Stanley Fiel may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects ofexposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease, He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. 6 With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Fiel's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 8. CLARK COOPER, M.D. Dr. Clark Cooper may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects ofexposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in die plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Cooper's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 9. ILAN ALLAN FEINGOLD, M.D. Dr. Feingold may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. 7 He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal caner and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiffhas a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Feingold's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 10. HARRY DEMOPOULOS, M.D. Dr. Demopoulos will testify regarding the state of the scientific and medical knowledge concerning asbestos. His testimony may include, but is not limited to, discussions regarding the respiratory system, asbestos related diseases and the effect of other substances on the respiratory system. 11. WILLIAM NICHOLSON, Ph. D. Dr. Nicholson may testify concerning the quantity of asbestos fibers necessary to cause impairment or disability in workers and the level of asbestos fibers released during normal use of gasket materials and whether such exposure levels cause asbestos related disease. 12. EDWARD GAENSLER, M.D. Dr. Gaensler may testify to the purpose and function ofthe lung and the difference between restrictive and obstructive disease of the lungs. He may discuss the criteria for making a diagnosis of asbestosis. He may discuss the concept of the 8 dose response relationship and how it applies to asbestos related disease. He may testify as to the concept of latency and its application to asbestos related disease. He may discuss background levels of asbestos exposure and their effect on lung function. He may discuss the issue of progression. He may testify as to asbestos mineralogy and the effect of various fiber types on the lungs. He may discuss the interpretation of pulmonary function studies. 13. MICHAEL GRAHAM, M.D. Dr. Michael Graham is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. 14. DONALD GREENBERG, M.D. Dr. Donald Greenberg is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis ofthe medical condition of any plaintiff and, in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony on the medical condition which caused plaintiffs death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. 15. JOHN CRAIGHEAD, M.D. Dr. John Craighead is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and, in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony on the medical condition which caused plaintiffs death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. ' 9 16. PETER BARRETT, M.D. Dr. Peter Barrett is a practicing radiologist and a B-reader certified by NIOSH. His testimony will relate to his interpretation of chest films taken of the plaintiffs, as disclosed in reports produced and made available to the plaintiff. It is anticipated that Dr. Barrett will testify generally as to his interpretation of the plaintiffs chest films, the presence of any asbestos-related condition as evidenced on the chest film, and the presence of other abnormalities or conditions unrelated to any exposure to asbestos. 17. JOHN FENNESSEY, M.D. Dr. John Fennessey is a practicing radiologist and a B-reader certified by NIOSH. His testimony will relate to his interpretation of chest films taken ofthe plaintiffs, as disclosed in reports produced and made available to the plaintiff. It is anticipated that Dr. Fennessey will testify generally as to his interpretation of the plaintiffs chest films, the presence of any asbestos-related condition as evidenced on the chest film, and the presence of other abnormalities or conditions unrelated to any exposure to asbestos. 18. J. LEROY BALZER, Ph.D., CIH Mr. Balzer is a Certified Industrial Hygienist He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 19. DONNA M. RINGO, CIH Donna M. Ringo is a Certified Industrial Hygienist. She may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. She may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. She may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and 10 fiver drift She may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. She may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. She may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 20. ALAN M. SEGRAVE Mr. Alan M. Segrave may give testimony as to the background levels of airborne asbestos fibers and concerning testing and analysis of asbestos-containing products manufactured by Garlock, the actual fiber levels encountered during the use of Garlock asbestos-containing products, and fiber counts sampled in connection with the application and removal of Garlock materials. Mr. Segrave may also give testimony regarding fiber levels encountered during the use, application and removal of asbestos-containing products manufactured by other parties, including Kaylo pipecovering. 21. LARRY LIUKONEN Mr. Liukonen is an industrial hygienist He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to expousre that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 22. ROBERT W. MORGAN, M.D. Dr. Robert Morgan may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects faa exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and 11 stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products, he may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Morgan's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 23. Any present or former employee of Garlock. Garlock specifically identifies Mr. Clayton Jewett and Mr. Roy Whittaker as former and current employees who may testify on behalf of Garlock. Mr. Jewett and/or Mr. Whittaker will provide testimony on the process involved in the manufacture of various asbestos containing and non-asbestos containing Garlock gaskets and packing material. Mr. Jewett and/or Mr. Whittaker may also describe the various products manufactured by Garlock and the proper application and use of said products. Garlock reserves the right to call any current or past Garlock employees in response to the evidence presented in plaintiffs case-in-chief. 24. Any and all treating physicians, attending physicians, screening physicians and pathologists of the plaintiffs decedent and of the plaintiff. 25. Any and all family members, friends, or other witnesses disclosed by the plaintiff or otherwise revealed in discovery to be conducted. 26. Any and all co-workers or other employees of the employees) of the plaintiffs decedent as disclosed by plaintiff or other defendants or as otherwise may be disclosed in trial preparation and discovery. 12 Garlock further identifies all witnesses named by any other party and reserves the right to call any such witness in its case. Garlock reserves the right to cross-examine any fact or expert witnesses disclosed by the plaintiffs as well as any and all treating physicians and any individual with knowledge of the physical or mental condition of the plaintiffs. In addition, defendants adopt, insofar as they deem it consistent with their own defenses, any fact witnesses disclosed by any co-defendants or any plaintiff in this matter. Garlock disclaims any duty to introduce any of the above-mentioned witnesses at trial by virtue of placing them on the list. Garlock specifically reserves the right to call any witness listed by any party, either live or by deposition or by previous trial testimony who may have been called to testify in this case for the purpose of impeachment, rebuttal, or any other purpose the law allows. Garlock has not yet completed its determination of witnesses and reserves the right to supplement and amend this list up to and including the time of trial. K:\PS\GARLOCK\73924.I-L K:\PS\GARLOCK\33085.1-S 991.89466 13 DtL.2iS> boo 3 NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCIL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT GARLOCK INC'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, GARLOCK INC, Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause ("Garlock"), and, upon the calling of this case for trial, and before the Voir Dire examination of the jury and statements of counsel to the jury, and before the introduction of any evidence, respectfully moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs, counsel for Plaintiffs, all other Defendants, counsel for those Defendants, and all of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' witnesses through such counsel to refrain from making any mention through interrogation, either directly or indirectly, at any stage of the trial of this case concerning any of the matters hereinafter set forth without first approaching the Bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors and the jurors ultimately selected to try this case. In this connection, Garlock would show the Court that the matters set out would be inadmissible for any purpose on proper and timely objection in that they have no bearing on the issues in this case or the rights of the parties to this action. Permitting interrogation of witnesses, comments to jurors or prospective jurors, or offers of evidence concerning these matters would tend to prejudice the jury, and sustaining objections to such questions, comments, or offers would not cure such prejudice, but rather reinforce the impact of such prejudicial matters on the minds of the jurors. The following matters would not be admissible for any purpose in this cause: I. That this Motion in Limine has been presented to be ruled upon by the Court. In this connection, Garlock moves that Plaintiffs* counsel and the other Defendants' counsel be instructed not to suggest to the jury by argument or otherwise that Garlock has sought to exclude from proof any matter bearing on the issues in this cause or the rights of the parties to this suit. n. That Garlock has made any offers of settlement or has attempted to negotiate with respect to settlement, or, that Garlock has failed to make any such offers or negotiations. Such evidence would be immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this case and would clearly prejudice the jury. m. That any reference to or evidence of other asbestos lawsuits presently pending in CAMERON County District Courts, wherein Plaintiffs are claiming damages stemming from exposure to asbestos, should be prohibited since the presence of these other actions is immaterial to the suit before this Court, And further, that any other lawsuits outside these courts, which are presently pending, wherein plaintiffs are claiming damages stemming form exposure to asbestos, are immaterial to the trial of this action. Any comment on such facts of this other litigation, or the attempt to introduce testimony or evidence regarding such facts, would be highly improper and prejudicial to Garlock. Even if the Court were to sustain an objection thereto, and properly instruct the jury not to consider the facts, the testimony would be of such a prejudicial nature that an instruction by the Court would not cure the error and Garlock would ask the Court to grant a mistrial. IV. 2 Any statements or appeal to the jury invoking it to be the conscience of the community in this case with respect to this verdict, or an appeal to the jury to do something by its verdict to make the community proud in this case. V. Any statement or argument with respect to a unit of time in which that unit of time is broken into smaller parts of weeks, days or hours and multiplied by a dollar amount. This type of evidence or testimony is clearly not permissible and would tend to produce an excessive damage verdict. VI. Any photographs, newspaper articles or any other exhibits placed in such position that they are shown or exhibited to prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this case at any time before such exhibits are properly admitted into evidence by a ruling of this Court. vn. Any mention made in any form regarding accounts, observations, reports, experiences or opinions of any person concerning material facts when such person is not then and there present in Court to testify about such matters and subject to examination by Garlock's counsel. vm. Any reference to demands or requests for any party for matters found or contained in the Garlock files or within Garlock's control. IX. Any mention or reference to the failure of Garlock to call any witness available equally to any party herein, or, to the failure of Garlock to tender, refer to, read from, offer or exhibit 3 any ex parte statement or reports from any witness who is not then and there present in the Courtroom to testify and be subject to examination by counsel. Such statements constitute hearsay and are inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 802. X. Any mention by Plaintiff regarding what they have been told by a doctor, osteopath, chiropractor, or medical witness as to the Plaintiffs physical conditions and/or disabilities. Such statements are both prejudicial and cumulative. In addition, such statements constitute hearsay and are inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 802. XI. Any reference, directly or indirectly, about the insurance of any party to this action. The question of whether or not any of the parties to the event in question are covered or protected by insurance of any kind is wholly immaterial to any issue before the jury and would be prejudicial to Garlock. The parties, their counsel and all witnesses should be prevented from using any pleadings, testimony, remarks, inferences, questions, or arguments which would directly or inferentially informed he jury of such facts. Such evidence is of such nature that no instruction by the Court could remove the harmful effect of having such evidence before the jury. Any evidence concerning whether any party to these lawsuits was or was not insured is inadmissible under Rule 411 of the Texas Rules of Evidence which states in pertinent part: "Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible on the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully ..." Tex. R. Evid. 411. This exclusion is based on dual theories of irrelevance and furtherance of the social policy favoring insurance. See, Weinstein Burger, Evidence. 411(2) (1980). Consequently, any 4 evidence concerning whether any party to this lawsuit was or was not insured or that an insurance company played any part in the investigation or the preparation of this case for trial is totally inadmissible and highly prejudicial and should be excluded. See also. Tex. R. Evid. 403. xn. Any reference Or explanation involving the fact that Garlock is a corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coltec Industries Inc. Any reference to the wealth or relative financial capabilities of Garlock of any other reference which implies that Garlock, as a corporation, has no heart and soul or is non-human, is prejudicial and implies that a corporation has fewer rights under the law than a natural person. The fact that Garlock is not a natural person is totally irrelevant to the issues before this Court, and therefore, inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 401. Further, any reference to the fact that Garlock is a financially solvent entity, or any related inference is not only irrelevant, but is prejudicial and would unduly confuse the jury and therefore, is inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 403. xm. Any prior statement of any witness who is available at trial if such statements are offered for purpose other than impeachment or rebuttal. Such prior statements are inadmissible as hearsay under Tex. R. Evid. 802. XIV. No mention or testimony concerning either Plaintiffs "increased risk" of contracting any disease in absence of medical testimony that in reasonable medical probability the Plaintiff contract such disease. 5 XV. Further, Garlock anticipates that Plaintiffs will call certain witnesses to testify in this case who have had or currently do have pending lawsuits similar to the instant case in which it was or is alleged that these wimesses have injuries related to their exposure to asbestos. In that connection, Garlock makes the following items the subject of this Motion: A. Any mention of that witnesses* physical condition or the diagnosis of any doctor of any of said wimesses, except to say that said wimesses had or have a lawsuit in which they claimed or presently claim injury. B. Any mention that any witness may have settled his lawsuit with one or more Defendants in the present action. C. Any mention that any witness has any increased risk of cancer or other disease, or that he suffers from mental anguish or fear from any increased risk of cancer or other disease. Such testimony by other wimesses is irrelevant and immaterial to the claims in this case and would serve only to prejudice this jury. Further, such testimony involves matters which are only property admissible by expert testimony and, therefore, would be hearsay testimony if given by these wimesses. Any such testimony would be calculated only to inflame and prejudice the jury. Tex. R. Evid. 403. XVI. That no reference to any of the following be made: A. To the location of Garlock's principal places of business, places of incorporation or that Garlock is not a Texas corporation. B. That asbestos or asbestos-containing products have been or are tta nationwide cause of death.tt C. That any Defendant has paid "his debt" or "fair share." 6 D. That Plaintiffs condition is an "emotional drain on the family" of the Plaintiffs or their families. E. That the Plaintiffs or any other members of their family are "required to live with" or other language referring to pain, suffering, or mental anguish of any person other than the Plaintiff. F. Any reference to any one or more of a group for documents known as the "Raybestos-Manhattan papers" or the "Sumner Simpson letters." G. Any reference that Plaintiffs or other lay witnesses believe certain consequences resulted from Plaintiffs exposure to products containing asbestos. H. That any friend, relative, co-worker or other person who had already been exposed to asbestos suffered any injury as a result of said exposure or died from an illness related to said exposure. I. That Garlock or other party Defendants or any other asbestos-manufacturing companies have settled prior asbestos-related claims. J. That asbestos-containing products have been declared defective or unreasonably dangerous by any court jury or other official entity. K. That juries in prior asbestos cases have awarded money damages to plaintiffs, or the size of the awards. L. That Plaintiffs' recovery will be shared with their attorneys, or that they have been required to incur expenses to bring this suit. M. That the jury panel or the juror should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you, " or should apply the "Golden Rule" in the trial of these facts. N. That the juror or jury panel should attempt to "send Defendants a message" or any other such language which is calculated to have the jury assess the damages based upon an emotional response and not upon the evidence before the jury and the Court's charge. O. Any testimony concerning the state of the medical and scientific knowledge at any time in the past with regard to exposure and working conditions of asbestos textile workers, asbestos manufacturing workers, asbestos mining workers, or any other type of worker whose exposure to asbestos may have been of a different type, quantity, quality and duration from that of these Plaintiffs. P. That the jury would "set the safety standards in Texas or any other area." 7 Q. That the members of the jury panel or jury would or would not take any amount of money in exchange for the position of the Plaintiffs or their family other language attempting to have the jurors place themselves in the position of the Plaintiffs or their family. * Any comment on the above matters would be immaterial and irrelevant and could only be calculated to prejudice and inflame the jury, thus depriving Garlock of a fair trial on the issues of this case and would be of such a prejudicial nature that an instruction by the Court could not cure the error and a mistrial would be necessary. xvn. Further, Garlock moves that neither Plaintiffs, their witnesses or their counsel be permitted to display, show, mention or refer in any way to any pictures, movies, videotapes, or other electronic reproductions of any sort showing or tending to show any Plaintiff or other victim of any disease in a condition of ill health or weakness without first displaying said pictures, movies, videotapes or electronic reproductions to the Judge and all defense counsel outside the presence of the jury or any prospective juror, allowing Garlock and other Defendants to have an opportunity to examine said items and make objections prior to the time that any juror or prospective juror is allowed to see or hear such evidence. Otherwise, inadmissible and highly prejudicial material may be brought to the attention of the jurors and such materials would be of such a prejudicial nature that an instruction by the Court could not cure the error and mistrial would be necessary. xvm. Further, Defendants would make the following matters or any reference thereto, the subject of this Motion since Plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages: A. The size and wealth of Garlock or any other corporate Defendant; and 8 B. Garlock or any Defendant has profited, including the amount of said profit, from the sale of any products containing asbestos. Such matters are immaterial, irrelevant and calculated only to prejudice Garlock and other Defendants in the eyes of the jury. See, Tex. R. Evid. 402 and 403. Furthermore, Texas has consistently followed the doctrine that the financial condition of the parties is not admissible, even where punitive damages are sought. Texas Public Utilities Corp. v. Edwards. 99 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1936, writ dism'd). Sre also. McCollum Exploration Co. v. Reaueh. 146 S.W.2d 1109 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio, afFd on other grounds. 163 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. 1942); Murphv v. Waldrin. 692 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1985, writ refd n.r.e.). Defendants therefore submit that any reference to said matters should be prohibited. XIX. That Garlock engaged in wanton or intentional conduct for the purposes of supporting an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are not appropriate in this type of litigation. In the circumstances of this type of case, the allowance of punitive damages is incompatible with the objectives of this cause of action. Moreover, the policy objectives of punitive damages are satisfied by Garlock's multiple exposure to thousands of claims for compensatory damages and the fact that none of these Defendants have produced or sold asbestos-containing products since the early 1970s. Finally, repeated assessments of punitive damages assessments of punitive damages in actions already filed threaten to exhaust Defendants* resources making them unable to satisfy future compensatory or punitive awards. Such awards are not favored, and the policy goals of punitive awards have been satisfied. Further, any evidence or testimony offered to show punitive liability should be excluded. Without a prima facie showing of punitive liability, such testimony offered of punitive or 9 exemplary damages is irrelevant, immaterial, prejudicial and inflammatory. Tex. R. Evid. 403. Further, reference to punitive damages or to evidence regarding punitive damages during voir dire, opening statements under prejudicial to Garlock. XX. Garlock further moves the Court to prohibit any mention of joint defensive litigation management procedures or facilities concerning the cooperative efforts of Defendants to settle, arbitrate, resolve, and/or try asbestos claims. Such testimony is immaterial, irrelevant and any probative value is far outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Tex. R. Evid. 403. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Garlock respectfully prays that this Motion in Limine be granted, and that an appropriate Order of this Court be entered pursuant thereto. Respectfully submitted, BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE, A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS BY: JOHN WARD :ATE BAR NO. 20848000 KENNETH S. WALL STATE BAR NO. 20756790 MELISSA K. FERRELL STATE BAR NO. 06937020 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone: (713) 529-3110 Fax: (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GARLOCK INC 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forward to all counsel of record, via either certified mail, return receipt requested, hand delivery or regular mail, this X(f) day of Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219-4257 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS K:\PS\GARLOCK\73924.1-M K:\PS\GARLOCK\53085.1-S 991.89466 11 NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCIL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER GRANTING GARLOCK INC'S MOTION IN LIMINE ON THISday of_____________________ , 1995, came on for hearing the Motion in Limine filed herein by the Third Party Defendant, Garlock Inc, and the Court having heard the same, together with argument of counsel, is of the opinion that this Motion in Limine, as to each paragraph, should be: Paragraph 1: Paragraph 2; Paragraph 3: Paragraph 4: Paragraph 5: Paragraph 6: Paragraph 7: Paragraph 9: Paragraph 10: Paragraph 11: Paragraph 12: Paragraph 13: Paragraph 14: Paragraph 15: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Paragraph 16: Paragraph 17: Paragraph 18: Paragraph 19: Paragraph 20: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Denied: Denied: Denied: Denied: Denied: JUDGE PRESIDING DtC.lz.9> NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCBL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ DATE ADMIT N/AD 1 Analysis of fiber release from certain asbestos products. GCA Corporation-Technology Division-Dec. 1982. 2 Asbestos Exposure from gasket operations. Naval Regional Medical Center - May 1978. 3 An evaluation of simulated field use of various asbestos containing packing materials. Stephen W. Campbell, CSP, CIHMay 1983. 4 The Actual Contribution of Garlock Asbestos Gasket Materials to the Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Workers. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - October 1982. 5 The Actual Occupational Exposure to Airborne Asbestos Released by Garlock Spiral Wound, Braided and Encapsulated Gaskets. Carl A. Mangold, CIH -December 1982. 6 The Actual Contribution of Asbestos Fiber Exposure During Gasket Removal from Pipe Flanges Aboard Ship. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - November 1983. 7 Affidavit of William J. Nicholson, PhD - November 1983.. 8 Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Lee B. Reichman- October 1987. 9 Garlock, Inc. Gasket Materials - A Comparison of the Tyndall Phenomena to the Actual Concentration of Asbestos Fibers in the Breathing Zone of Workers. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - July 1986. / 10 Asbestos - fiber exposure related to the replacement of Garlock Style 7021 gaskets. Neilson Associates- May 1981. 11 An evaluation of potential occupational exposure to airborne asbestos during the installation and removal of braided asbestos gasket material. Neilson Associates- April 1982. 12 An industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the utilization of style 5880. Neilson Associates - June 1980. EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC Certificate of Service CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument of Garlock Inc was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Plaintiffs and by regular mail to all other counsel of record on this the rfr> day of _ 1995. K:\PS\GARLOCKY73924.1-L K:\PS\GARLOCK\53065.1-S 991.89*66 EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ DATE ADMIT N/AD 132 Any and all exhibits listed by other parties or otherwise identified during the course of the proceedings in this case. 133 Photographs of Garlock Products and Naval Shipyards. 134 Warning Label. 135 Samples of Garlock Asbestos Products. 136 Curriculum Vitae of Donna M. Ringo, C.I.H. 137 Curriculum Vitae of Carl Mangold, C.I.H. Finally. Oarlock Inc reserves the right to introduce exhibits not designated herein far the purpose nf imjwaghmpnt or rebuttal. Respectfully submitted. BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE, A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS STATE BAR NO. 20756790 MELISSA K. FERRELL STATE BAR NO. 06937020 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone: (713) 529-3110 Fax: (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GARLOCK INC EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 116 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 6/2-3/92, 92-LGE-68, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 117 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 7/13/92, 92-LGE-79-4, Louisville, KY. 118 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 10/5-8/93, Major Locomotive Repair Facility During Gasket Removal. 119 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 5/12/94, 94-LGE-28, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 120 British Standard for Asbestos Exposure. 1969 No. 609 Factories. The Asbestos Regulations 1969. 121 British Department of Employment Technical Data Note 24. Asbestos Regulations 1969. Respiratory Protective Equipment. 122 British - The Asbestosis Research Council Technical Note 13. Standard for Asbestos Dust Concentration for use with the Asbestos Regulations 1969. 123 British - The Asbestosis Research Council Technical Note 2. Dust Sampling Procedures for use with The Asbestos Regulations 1969. 124 Air Sampling for Asbestos During Maintenance Activities at * Trinity River Authority of Texas Central Regional Wastewater System. Grand Prairie, Tx, May 31, 1991. Technical Safety and Health Counseling Inc. 125 Technical report for Garlock, Inc.. Occupational exposures During Proscessing, Handling, Installation and Removal of Garlock Asbestos-Containing Gaskets. McCrone Project No. ME1537- June 1985. 126 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 3/17, 18/92, Trimble County, Louisville, Kentucky 127 Curriculam Vitae of Robert N. Sawyer, M.D. 128 Curriculam Vitae of Larry Liukonen 129 Any and all medical records of plaintiff including but not limited to documentary, x-rays, photographs of pathological materials, and reports of Defendant's expert witnesses. 130 The income tax and work records of plaintiff. 131 The Curricula vitae of any and all expert witnesses called by other parties. EXHIBIT UST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-- NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 98 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/28/92, 92-LGE-79-1, 4th & Brandies Streets, Louisville, KY. 99 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/29/92, 92-LGE-79-2, Lexin & Braeview Streets, Louisville, KY. 100 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/30/92, 92-LGE-79-3, Belmont & Bardstown, Louisville, KY 101 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/30/92, 92-LGE-81, St. Helen's Station, Louisville, KY. 102 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/31/92, 92-LGE-82, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 103 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 8/3/92, 92LGE-79-5, 3rd & Collins Station, Louisville, KY. 104 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 92-LGE83, Trimble County Station, Louisville, KY. 105 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 8/6/92, 92-LGE-84, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. 106 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 8/26/92, 92-LGE-86, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 107 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 10/5/92, 92-LGE-92, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 108 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 10/29 30/92, 92-LGE-97, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 109 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 3/22, 29/93, 93-LGE-16, Palmer Ball, Louisville, KY. 110 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 5/12/93, 93-LGE-23, 834 E. Broadway Street, Louisville, KY. 111 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 11/3/93, 93-LGE-43, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 112 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 6/7/94, 94-LGE-37, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 113 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 6/7/94, 94-LGE-34, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 114 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 8/9/94, 94-LGE-42, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 115 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 5/26/92, 92-LGE-66, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 80 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/22/92, 92-LGE-50, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 81 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/29/92, 92-LGE-56, Ford Truck Plant, Louisville, KY. 82 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/12/92, 92-LGE-61, 11th & Main Streets, Louisville, KY. 83 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/15/92, 92-LGE-63, Doe Run Station, Louisville, KY. 84 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/24/92, 92-LGE-55, Gas Department, Louisville, KY. 85 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/11/92, 92-LGE-29, Magnolia Compressor Station, Louisville, KY. 86 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/6/92, 92LGE-41, Penille Road Station, Louisville, KY. 87 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/21/92, 92-LGE-48-1, Muldraugh, Louisville, KY. 88 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/22/92, 92-LGE-48-3, Muldraugh, Louisville, KY. 89 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/26/92, 92-LGE-66, BOC Gas Control & Storage Louisville, KY. 90 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/22-29/92, 92-LGE-55, Various Regulator and Relief Pits, Louisville, KY. 91 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 6/15/92, 92-LGE-71, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. 92 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/16/92, 92-LGE-45, Crestwood Area, Louisville, KY. 93 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/20/92, 92-LGE-47, Muldraugh, Louisville, KY. 94 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/10/92, 92-LGE-73, Magnolia Facility, Louisville, KY. 95 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/6-10/92, 92-LGE-72, Muldraugh Compressor, Louisville, KY. 96 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/21-22/92, 92-LGE-75, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 97 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/27/92, 92-LGE-76, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. DATE ADMIT N/AD EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 63 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 9/8/91, 91LGE-24, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 64 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 9/20, 23,24/91, 91-LGE-25, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 65 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 10/1,2,8/91, 91-LGE-28, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 66 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 9/30/91 to 10/24/91, 91-LGE-26, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 67 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 11/4/91, 91-LGE-38, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 68 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 12/28, 29/91, 91-LGE-43, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 69 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/10/92, 92-LGE-02, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 70 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/17/92, 91-LGE-05, Can Run Power Plant, Louisville, KY. 71 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/16/92, 92-LGE-04, Trimble County, Louisville, KY. 72 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/31/92, 92-LGE-08, Trimble County, Louisville, KY. 73 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 2/13/92, 92-LGE-14, Can Run Power Plant, Louisville, KY. 74 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/3/92, 92LGE-21, AC & S Shop, Louisville, KY. 75 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/25/92, 92-LGE-37, The King's Daughter & Son Nursing Home, Louisville, KY. 76 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/3/92, 92LGE-40, Trimble County, Louisville, KY. 77 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/27/92, 92-LGE-38, Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY. 78 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/27/92, 92-LGE-38, Custom Chrome, Louisville, KY. 79 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/27/92, 92-LGE-38, Portland Station, Louisville, KY. DATE ADMIT N/AD EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 50 Asbestos, Manufacture, Importation, Processing and Distribution Prohibitions - Federal Register - EPA - 40 CFR Part 763 [(OPPTS - 62114A:FRL - 4635-7)]. 51 Final Report Actual Asbestos Fiber Release During Gasket Removal Work Practices. 8/23/91. 52 Materials Survey Asbestos - National Security Resources Board US Dept, of the Interior Bureau of Mines 2/52. 53 Heating and Cooling for Man in Industry - American Industrial Hygiene Association - 1970. 54 Asbestos in Public & Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Analyses of Selected Data Previously Considered by the Literature Review Panel. Health Effects Institute - Asbestos Research 1992. 55 'Asbestos and Disease" I. J. Selikoff and D. H. K. Lee; Academic Press 1978 pp. 17, 464-467, 477. 56 Final Report: Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards for Construction and General Industry. Contract Number J-9-F-8-0033, Task Order 4, Option Year 1. Prepared for U.S. Dept, of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Office of Regulatory Analysis. Prepared by: CONSAD Research Corporation, July 27, 1990. 57 Ambient Water Quality Criteria For Asbestos. Prepared by U. S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington D.C., EPA 440/5-80-022, October, 1980. 58 1994 Illinois Register, Rules of Government Agencies, Vol. 18, Issue 39, September 30, 1994, pp. 14521-14829. 59 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 Federal Register Vol. 59 No. 153, August 10, 1994, p. 40904. 60 U.S.S. Chemicals Survey Report, "Asbestos Gasket Grinding Simulation," December 16, 1980; prepared by J. P. Koch. 61 U.S.S. Chemicals Survey Report, "Asbestos Exposure Evaluations USS Chemicals - Neville Island," May 17, 1984; prepared by S. D. Stockton, CIH - approved by F. M. Tora, PH.P, CIH. 62 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/23/91, 91-LGE-08, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. DATE ADMIT N/AD EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 37 OSHA-CFR-Asbestos NESHAP revision, including disposal of asbestos containing materials removed from schools. Tuesday, January 10, 1989. 38 OSHA - CFR - Title 29 - Part 1910. December 7, 1971. 39 OSHA - CFR - Title 29 - Part 1910. June 7, 1972. 40 Federal Register - Environmental Protection Agency - 40 CFR Part 763. July 12, 1989. 41 Federal Register-Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR parts 61 and 763. January 10, 1989. 42 NIOSH Heta 87-017-1949 Health hazard evaluation report. United Rubber Works. 43 The Actual Contribution of Asbestos Fibers from Removal and Installation of Asbestos Packing from Valves. Carl A. Mangold, CIH and Robert L. Gay, PhD - May 1991. 44 Report on the Measurement of Fiber Release from simulated Steam-Stressed Durable Gaskets (120, 160, 190 degrees for 5 hours) for Health Hazard Evaluation. AM Langer, RP Nolan, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, January 31, 1992. 45 Report on the Measurement of Fiber Release from simulated Steam-Stressed Durable Gaskets (250 degrees Celsius for 30 days) for Health Hazard Evaluation. AM Langer, RP Nolan, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, December 9, 1992. 46 Report on the Measurement of Fiber Release from simulated Steam-Stressed Durable Gaskets (120,160, 190 degrees for 5 days) for Health Hazard Evaluation. AM Langer, RP Nolan, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, November 6, 1992. 47 Nonmetallic Gaskets for Pipe Flanges - American Standard ASA B16.21 - 1951 - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 48 Nonmetallic Gaskets for Pipe Flanges - American Standard ASA B16.21 - 1962 - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 49 Nonmetallic Flat Gaskets for Pipe Flanges - American Standard ASA B16.21 - 1978 - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-- NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 26 Asbestos Fibers in the Ambient Air in the Greater San Francisco Area. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - March 1983. 27 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of Bystanders During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - opening of old flanges and removal of asbestos gaskets; Mangold 1989. 28 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - cutting gaskets with a circular cutter; Mangold 1989. 29 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - gasket cutting with hand shears; Mangold 1989. 30 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - gasket cutting with a ball pein hammer; Mangold 1989. 31 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - scribing of gasket materials; Mangold 1989. 32 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - flange face scraping with putty knife; Mangold 1989. 33 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - hand wire brushing of asbestos gasket residual from flanges; Mangold 1989. 34 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - power wire brushing of flange faces; Mangold 1989. 35 Industrial hygiene reports from Shell Oil regarding gaskets and packing. 36 OSHA-CFR-Occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. Final rules-Friday, June 20, 1986. Amendments May 12, 1987. EXHIBIT LIST OF GARLOCK INC CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 13 An industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the cutting Garlock Gasket material types 900 and 7021. Neilson Associates- June 1980. 14 An industrial hygiene survey to determine airbom asbestos fiber concentrations during the utilization of Garlock gasket materialStyle 7021. Neilson Associations- October 1980. 15 An evaluation of potential occupational exposure to airborne asbestos fibers encountered during installation and removal of asbestos containing gaskets-Gasket Type 604. Neilson AssociatesApril 1982. 16 Fiber release on asbestos valve packing material of the Crane Packing Company, Morton Grove, Illinois. Michael Matteson, School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. 17 Use of John Crane Packing in the railroad industry. Arthur D. Little, Inc.- June 1985. 18 Structure Probe-Technical report A.W. Chesterton No. 31334Construction analysis research investigation of 25 gasket and packing samples using polarized light microscopy, dispersion staining and infrared spectroscopy techniques. June 30, 1988. 19 Structure Probe-Technical report No. 31292-Construction analysis research investigation of 23 gasket and packing Anchor samples using polarized light, microscopy, dispersion staining and infrared spectroscopy techniques. May 20, 1988. 20 Asbestos removal H.P. Turbine, boiler botton. J.P. Carr, I.H.February 28, 1984. 21 Hygeia, Inc., A.W. Chesterton Company, testing of packing and gasket materials, Project No. 5617. March 1989. 22 The Actual Release of Asbestos Fibers from New, Used and Flanged Garlock Inc. Asbestos Gasket Materials. Carl A. Mangold, C1H - September 1985. 23 Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices for 1987 1988. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. - 24 Technical report occupational exposure of asbestos during gasket handling and processing at Anchor Packing Company. McCrone Project No. ME-5396- October 1988. 25 Report of Robert Liptai-December 23, 1983. DATE ADMIT N/AD DcC.Ilc.9 j* boo5 NO. 94- 10-5861-E STANCIL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY'S DESIGNATION OF FACT AND EXPERT WITNESSES COMES NOW, Defendant The Anchor Packing Company and makes and files this Designation of Expert and Fact Witnesses in the above-entitled and numbered cause, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTUNE, A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS KENNETH S. WALL STATE BAR NO. 20756790 MELISSA K. FERRELL STATE BAR NO. 06937020 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone: (713) 529-3110 Fax: (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the court and plaintiffs counsel via certified mail, return receipt request and via regular mail to all other known counsel of record on this p/Q day of jOisT ^ 1995. Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219-4257 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT AND FACT WITNESSES THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY is uncertain at this time as to which witnesses may be called. However, defendant anticipates that it will call the following witnesses: 1. CARL MANGOLD, C.I.H. Mr. Mangold is an industrial hygienist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 2. ROBERT GAY, Ph.D. Mr. Gay is an environmental consultant and chemist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 3. HENRY J. SILVERMAN, M.D. Dr. Henry J. Silverman may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease alleged suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He OOXmay also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Silverman's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 4. HANS WEILL, M.D. Dr. Hans Weill may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. 4 Dr. Weill's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education, and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 5. ROBERT SAWYER, M.D. Dr. Robert Sawyer may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of caner issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Sawyer's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 6. TERRENCE MOISAN, M.D. Dr. Terrence Moisan may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and 5 stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Moisan's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 7. STANLEY FIEL, M.D. Dr. Stanley Fiel may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation ofpulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive 6 and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Fiel's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 8. CLARK COOPER, M.D. Dr. Clark Cooper may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Cooper's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 9. ILAN ALLAN FEINGOLD, M.D. Dr. Feingold may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of an asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes. 7 asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal caner and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products. He may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and whether a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, whether the condition is progressive and whether other disease or conditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Feingold's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 10. HARRY DEMOPOULOS, M.D. Dr. Demopoulos will testify regarding the state of the scientific and medical knowledge concerning asbestos. His testimony may include, but is not limited to, discussions regarding the respiratory system, asbestos related diseases and the effect of other substances on the respiratory system. 11. WILLIAM NICHOLSON, Ph. D. Dr. Nicholson may testify concerning the quantity of asbestos fibers necessary to cause impairment or disability in workers and the level of asbestos fibers released during normal use of gasket materials and whether such exposure levels cause asbestos related disease. 12. EDWARD GAENSLER, M.D. Dr. Gaensler may testify to the purpose and function of the lung and the difference between restrictive and obstructive disease of the lungs. He may discuss the criteria for making a diagnosis of asbestosis. He may discuss the concept of the dose response relationship and how it applies to asbestos related disease. He may testify as to the concept of latency and its application to 8 asbestos related disease. He may discuss background levels of asbestos exposure and their effect on lung function. He may discuss the issue of progression. He may testify as to asbestos mineralogy and the effect of various fiber types on the lungs. He may discuss the interpretation of pulmonary function studies. 13. MICHAEL GRAHAM, M.D. Dr. Michael Graham is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony as to the cause of death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. 14. DONALD GREENBERG, M.D. Dr. Donald Greenberg is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and, in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony on the medical condition which caused plaintiffs death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. 15. JOHN CRAIGHEAD, M.D. Dr. John Craighead is a board certified pathologist who may give testimony regarding the pathological diagnosis of the medical condition of any plaintiff and, in the case of a deceased plaintiff, may give testimony on the medical condition which caused plaintiffs death. He will further testify as to whether any given plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent had a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure. He may also testify on the latency period related to various asbestos related diseases and the carcinogenic properties of different types of asbestos fibers. 9 16. PETER BARRETT, M.D. Dr. Peter Barrett is a practicing radiologist and a B-reader certified by NIOSH. His testimony will relate to his interpretation of chest films taken of the plaintiffs, as disclosed in reports produced and made available to the plaintiff. It is anticipated that Dr. Barrett will testify generally as to his interpretation of the plaintiffs chest films, the presence of any asbestos-related condition as evidenced on the chest film, and the presence of other abnormalities or conditions unrelated to any exposure to asbestos. 17. JOHN FENNESSEY, M.D. Dr. John Fennessey is a practicing radiologist and a B-reader certified by NIOSH. His testimony will relate to his interpretation of chest films taken of the plaintiffs, as disclosed in reports produced and made available to the plaintiff. It is anticipated that Dr. Fennessey will testify generally as to his interpretation of the plaintiffs chest films, the presence of any asbestos-related condition as evidenced on the chest film, and the presence of other abnormalities or conditions unrelated to any exposure to asbestos. 18. J. LEROY BALZER, Ph.D., CIH Mr. Balzer is a Certified Industrial Hygienist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 19. DONNA M. RINGO, CIH Donna M. Ringo is a Certified Industrial Hygienist. She may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. She may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. She may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and 10 fiber drift. She may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. She may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. She may testify as to exposure that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 20. ALAN M. SEGRAVE Mr. Alan M. Segrave may give testimony as to the background levels of airborne asbestos fibers and concerning testing and analysis of asbestos-containing products manufactured by Anchor, the actual fiber levels encountered during the use of Anchor asbestos-containing products, and fiber counts sampled in connection with the application and removal of Anchor materials. Mr. Segrave may also give testimony regarding fiber levels encountered during the use, application and removal of asbestos-containing products manufactured by other parties, including Kaylo pipecovering. 21. LARRY LIUKONEN Mr. Liukonen is an industrial hygienist. He may give testimony regarding the level of fiber release, if any, from gasket and packing products in the occupational setting. He may testify regarding threshold limit values and permissible exposure levels as promulgated by private organizations and government agencies. He may testify as to issues involving reentrainment and fiber drift. He may testify as to work practices regarding various types of occupations using products that contained asbestos. He may testify as to the applicability of the OSHA and Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines as they relate to various types of products including gaskets and packings. He may testify as to expousre that may result from the use of other types of asbestos products. 22. ROBERT W. MORGAN, MJ). Dr. Robert Morgan may testify, in general, concerning asbestos related diseases and the effects fo exposure to asbestos upon persons in occupational settings, including the epidemiology of asbestos related diseases and the criteria for diagnosis of any asbestos related disease. He may also testify regarding the existence or non-existence of any asbestos related disease in the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to pleural changes, 11 asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer. He may also testify on whether any asbestos related disease allegedly suffered by plaintiffs was medically or proximately caused by exposure to asbestos containing gasket and packing products, he may also testify on the existence of a dose response relationship between exposure to asbestos and asbestos related disease. He may also testify on increased risk of cancer issues and wheter a particular plaintiff has a reasonable fear of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. He may also testify on the health consequences of smoking. With respect to particular plaintiffs, he may testify as to review and interpretation of x-ray films, review and interpretation of pulmonary function testing, the nature and extent of any impairment or disability, wheter the condition is progressive and whether other disease or donditions are present in plaintiffs. Dr. Morgan's testimony will be based on his training, experience, education and review of the medical literature concerning asbestos related disease. 23. Any present or former employee of Anchor Packing. Anchor Packing specifically identifies Mr. John D. Call as a potential company witness, but reserves the right to call any current or past employee in response to the evidence presented in plaintiffs case-in-chief. 24. Any and all treating physicians, attending physicians, screening physicians and pathologists of the plaintiff's decedent and of the plaintiff. 25. Any and all family members, friends, or other witnesses disclosed by the plaintiff or otherwise revealed in discovery to be conducted. 26. Any and all co-workers or other employees of the employees) of the plaintiffs decedent as disclosed by plaintiff or other defendants or as otherwise may be disclosed in trial preparation and discovery. Anchor Packing further identifies all witnesses named by any other party and reserves the right to call any such witness in its case. Anchor Packing reserves the right to cross-examine any fact or expert witnesses disclosed by the plaintiffs as well as any and all treating physicians and any individual with 12 knowledge of the physical or mental condition of the plaintiffs. In addition, defendants adopt, insofar as they deem it consistent with their own defenses, any fact witnesses disclosed by any co-defendants or any plaintiff in this matter. Anchor Packing disclaims any duty to introduce any of the above-mentioned witnesses at trial by virtue of placing them on the list. Anchor Packing specifically reserves the right to call any witness listed by any party, either live or by deposition or by previous trial testimony who may have been called to testify in this case for the purpose of impeachment, rebuttal, or any other purpose the law allows. Anchor Packing has not yet completed its determination of witnesses and reserves the right to supplement and amend this list up to and including the time of trial. K:\ANCHOR\73923.1-L K:\ANCHOR\53085.1-S 16436.89466 13 dot) 6 NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCIL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause ("Anchor"), and, upon the calling of this case for trial, and before the Voir Dire examination of the jury and statements of counsel to the juTy, and before the introduction of any evidence, respectfully moves the Court to instruct Plaintiffs, counsel for Plaintiffs, all other Defendants, counsel for those Defendants, and all of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' witnesses through such counsel to refrain from making any mention through interrogation, either directly or indirectly, at any stage of the trial of this case concerning any of the matters hereinafter set forth without first approaching the Bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of all prospective jurors and the jurors ultimately selected to try this case. In this connection. Anchor would show the Court that the matters set out would be inadmissible for any purpose on proper and timely objection in that they have no bearing on the issues in this case or the rights of the parties to this action. Permitting interrogation of witnesses, comments to jurors or prospective jurors, or offers of evidence concerning these matters would tend to prejudice the jury, and sustaining objections to such questions, comments, or offers would not cure such prejudice, but rather reinforce the impact of such prejudicial matters on the minds of the jurors. 1 The following matters would not be admissible for any purpose in this cause: I. That this Motion in Limine has been presented to be ruled upon by the Court. In this connection, Anchor moves that Plaintiffs' counsel and the other Defendants' counsel be instructed not to suggest to the jury by argument or otherwise that Anchor has sought to exclude from proof any matter bearing on the issues in this cause or the rights of the parties to this suit. n. That Anchor has made any offers of settlement or has attempted to negotiate with respect to settlement, or, that Anchor has failed to make any such offers or negotiations. Such evidence would be immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this case and would clearly prejudice the jury. in. That any reference to or evidence of other asbestos lawsuits presently pending in CAMERON County District Courts, wherein Plaintiffs are claiming damages stemming from exposure to asbestos, should be prohibited since the presence of these other actions is immaterial to the suit before this Court. And further, that any other lawsuits outside these courts, which are presently pending, wherein plaintiffs are claiming damages stemming form exposure to asbestos, are immaterial to the trial of this action. Any comment on such facts of this other litigation, or the attempt to introduce testimony or evidence regarding such facts, would be highly improper and prejudicial to Anchor. Even if the Court were to sustain an objection thereto, and properly instruct the jury not to consider the facts, the testimony would be of such a prejudicial nature that an instruction by the Court would not cure the error and Anchor would ask the Court to grant a mistrial. rv. Any statements or appeal to the jury invoking it to be the conscience of the community in this case with respect to this verdict, or an appeal to the jury to do something by its verdict to make the community proud in this case. V. Any statement or argument with respect to a unit of time in which that unit of time is broken into smaller parts of weeks, days or hours and multiplied by a dollar amount. This type of evidence or testimony is clearly not permissible and would tend to produce an excessive damage verdict. VI. Any photographs, newspaper articles or any other exhibits placed in such position that they are shown or exhibited to prospective jurors and jurors ultimately selected in this cas at any time before such exhibits are properly admitted into evidence by a ruling of this Court. VII. Any mention made in any form regarding accounts, observations, reports, experiences or opinions of any person concerning material facts when such person is not then and there present in Court to testify about such matters and subject to examination by Anchor's counsel. VIII. Any reference to demands or requests for any party for matters found or contained in the Anchor files or within Anchor's control. 3 IX. Any mention or reference to the failure of Anchor to call any witness available equally to any party herein, or, to the failure of Anchor to tender, refer to, read from, offer or exhibit any ex parte statement or reports from any witness who is not then and there present in the Courtroom to testify and be subject to examination by counsel. Such statements constitute hearsay and are inadmissable under Tex. R. Evid. 802. X. Any mention by Plaintiff regarding what they have been told by a doctor, osteopath, chiropractor, or medical witness as to the Plaintiffs physical conditions and/or disabilities. Such statements are both prejudicial and cumulative. In addition, such statements constitute hearsay and are inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 802. XI. Any reference, directly or indirectly, about the insurance of any party to this action. The question of whether or not any of the parties to the event in question are covered or protected by insurance of any kind is wholly immaterial to any issue before the jury and would be prejudicial to Anchor. The parties, their counsel and all witnesses should be prevented from using any pleadings, testimony, remarks, inferences, questions, or arguments which would directly or inferentially informed he jury of such facts. Such evidence is of such nature that no instruction by the Court could remove the harmful effect of having such evidence before the jury. Any evidence concerning whether any party to these lawsuits was or was not insured is inadmissible under Rule 411 of the Texas Rules of Evidence which states in pertinent part: "Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible on the issue whether he acted negligently or 4 otherwise wrongfully . . ." Tex. R. Evid. 411. This exclusion is based on dual theories of irrelevance and furtherance of the social policy favoring insurance. See, Weinstein Burger, Evidence. 411(2) (1980). Consequently, any evidence concerning whether any party to this lawsuit was or was not insured or that an insurance company played any part in the investigation or the preparation of this case for trial is totally inadmissible and highly prejudicial and should be excluded. See also. Tex. R. Evid. 403. XII. Any reference or explanation involving the fact that Anchor is a corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coltec Industries Inc. Any reference to the wealth or relative financial capabilities of Anchor of any other reference which implies that Anchor, as a corporation, has no heart and soul or is non-human, is prejudicial and implies that a corporation has fewer rights under the law than a natural person. The fact that Anchor is not a natural person is totally irrelevant to the issues before this Court, and therefore, inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 401. Further, any reference to the fact that Anchor is a financially solvent entity, or any related inference is not only irrelevant, but is prejudicial and would unduly confuse the jury and therefore, is inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 403. xni. Any prior statement of any witness who is available at trial if such statements are offered for purpose other than impeachment or rebuttal. Such prior statements are inadmissible as hearsay under Tex. R. Evid. 802. 5 XIV. No mention or testimony concerning either Plaintiffs "increased risk" of contracting any disease in absence of medical testimony that in reasonable medical probability the Plaintiff contract such disease. XV. Further, Anchor anticipates that Plaintiffs will call certain witnesses to testify in this case who have had or currently do have pending lawsuits similar to the instant case in which it was or is alleged that these witnesses have injuries related to their exposure to asbestos. In that connection, Anchor makes the following items the subject of this Motion: A. Any mention of that witnesses' physical condition or the diagnosis of any doctor of any of said witnesses, except to say that said witnesses had or have a lawsuit in which they claimed or presently claim injury. B. Any mention that any witness may have settled his lawsuit with one or more Defendants in the present action. C. Any mention that any witness has any increased risk of cancer or other disease, or that he suffers from mental anguish or fear from any increased risk of cancer or other disease. Such testimony by other witnesses is irrelevant and immaterial to the claims in this case and would serve only to prejudice this jury. Further, such testimony involves matters which are only property admissible by expert testimony and, therefore, would be hearsay testimony if given by these witnesses. Any such testimony would be calculated only to inflame and prejudice the jury. Tex. R. Hvid. 403. 6 XVI. That no reference to any of the following be made: A. To the location of Anchor's principal places of business, places of incorporation or that Anchor is not a Texas corporation. B. That asbestos or asbestos-containing products have been or are "a nationwide cause of death." C. That any Defendant has paid "his debt" or "fair share." D. That Plaintiffs condition is an "emotional drain on the family" of the Plaintiffs or their families. E. That the Plaintiffs or any other members of their family are "required to live with" or other language referring to pain, suffering, or mental anguish of any person other than the Plaintiff. F. Any reference to any one or more of a group for documents known as the "Raybestos-Manhattan papers" or the "Sumner Simpson letters." G. Any reference that Plaintiffs or other lay witnesses believe certain consequences resulted from Plaintiffs exposure to products containing asbestos. H. That any friend, relative, co-worker or other person who had already been exposed to asbestos suffered any injury as a result of said exposure or died from an illness related to said exposure. I. That Anchor or other party Defendants or any other asbestos-manufacturing companies have settled prior asbestos-related claims. J. That asbestos-containing products have been declared defective or unreasonably dangerous by any court jury or other official entity. K. That juries in prior asbestos cases have awarded money damages to plaintiffs, or the size of the awards. L. That Plaintiffs' recovery will be shared with their attorneys, or that they have been required to incur expenses to bring this suit. M. That the jury panel or the juror should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you, " or should apply the "Golden Rule" in the trial of these facts. 7 N. That the juror or jury panel should attempt to "send Defendants a message" or any other such language which is calculated to have the jury assess the damages based upon an emotional response and not upon the evidence before the jury and the Court's charge. O. Any testimony concerning the state of the medical and scientific knowledge at any time in the past with regard to exposure and working conditions of asbestos textile workers, asbestos manufacturing workers, asbestos mining workers, or any other type of worker whose exposure to asbestos may have been of a different type, quantity, quality and duration from that of these Plaintiffs. P. That the jury would "set the safety standards in Texas or any other area." Q. That the members of the jury panel or jury would or would not take any amount of money in exchange for the position of the Plaintiffs or their family other language attempting to have the jurors place themselves in the position of the Plaintiffs or their family. Any comment on the above matters would be immaterial and irrelevant and could only be calculated to prejudice and inflame the jury, thus depriving Anchor of a fair trial on the issues of this case and would be of such a prejudicial nature that an instruction by the Court could not cure the error and a mistrial would be necessary. xvn. Further, Anchor moves that neither Plaintiffs, their witnesses or their counsel be permitted to display, show, mention or refer in any way to any pictures, movies, videotapes, or other electronic reproductions of any sort showing or tending to show any Plaintiff or other victim of any disease in a condition of ill health or weakness without first displaying said pictures, movies, videotapes or electronic reproductions to the Judge and all defense counsel outside the presence of the jury or any prospective juror, allowing Anchor and other Defendants to have an opportunity to examine said items and make objections prior to the time that any juror or prospective juror is allowed to see or hear such evidence. Otherwise, inadmissible and highly 8 prejudicial material may be brought to the attention of the jurors and such materials would be of such a prejudicial nature that an instruction by the Court could not cure the error and mistrial would be necessary. XVffl. Further, Defendants would make the following matters or any reference thereto, the subject of this Motion since Plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages: A. The size and wealth of Anchor or any other corporate Defendant; and B. Anchor or any Defendant has profited, including the amount of said profit, from the sale of any products containing asbestos. Such matters are immaterial, irrelevant and calculated only to prejudice Anchor and other Defendants in the eyes of the jury. See, Tex. R. Evid. 402 and 403. Furthermore, Texas has consistently followed the doctrine that the financial condition of the parties is not admissible, even where punitive damages are sought. Texas Public Utilities Corp. v. Edwards. 99 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1936, writ dism'd). See also. McCollum Exploration Co. v. Reaugh. 146 S.W.2d 1109 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio, affd on other grounds. 163 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. 1942); Murphy v. Waldrip. 692 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App. - Ft. Worth 1985, writ refd n.r.e.). Defendants therefore submit that any reference to said matters should be prohibited. XIX. That Anchor engaged in wanton or intentional conduct for the purposes of supporting an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are not appropriate in this type of litigation. In the circumstances of this type of case, the allowance of punitive damages is incompatible with the objectives of this cause of action. Moreover, the policy objectives of punitive damages are satisfied by Anchor's multiple exposure to thousands of claims for compensatory damages and 9 the fact that none of these Defendants have produced or sold asbestos-containing products since the early 1970s. Finally, repeated assessments of punitive damages assessments of punitive damages in actions already filed threaten to exhaust Defendants' resources making them unable to satisfy future compensatory or punitive awards. Such awards are not favored, and the policy goals of punitive awards have been satisfied. Further, any evidence or testimony offered to show punitive liability should be excluded. Without a nrima facie showing of punitive liability, such testimony offered of punitive or exemplary damages is irrelevant, immaterial, prejudicial and inflammatory. Tex. R. Evid. 403. Further, reference to punitive damages or to evidence regarding punitive damages during voir dire, opening statements under prejudicial to Anchor. XX. Anchor further moves the Court to prohibit any mention of joint defensive litigation management procedures or facilities concerning the cooperative efforts of Defendants to settle, arbitrate, resolve, and/or try asbestos claims. Such testimony is immaterial, irrelevant and any probative value is far outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Tex. R. Evid. 403. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Anchor respectfully prays that this Motion in Limine be granted, and that an appropriate Order of this Court be entered pursuant thereto. 10 Respectfully submitted. BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE, A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS BY: JOHN WARD STATE BAR NO. 20848000 KENNETH S. WALL STATE BAR NO. 20756790 MELISSA K. FERRELL STATE BAR NO. 06937020 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone: (713) 529-3110 Fax: (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forward to all counsel of record, via either certified mail, return receipt requested, hand delivery or regular mail, this AO day of Mj* ^ , 1995. Mr. Russell W. Budd BARON & BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219-4257 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS K:\ANCHORV73923.1-M K:\ANCHOR\53085.1-S 16436.89466 12 NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCE, LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. VS. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER GRANTING THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE ON THISday of, 1995, came on for hearing the Motion in Limine filed herein by the Third Party Defendant, THE ANCHOR TACKING COMPANY, and the Court having heard the same, together with argument of counsel, is of the opinion that this Motion in Limine, as to each paragraph, should be: Paragraph 1: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 2: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 3: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 4: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 5: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 6: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 7: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 9: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 10: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 11: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 12: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 13: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 14: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 15: Granted: Denied: Paragraph 16: "Paragraph 17: Paragraph 18: Paragraph 19: Paragraph 20: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Granted: Denied: Denied: Denied: Denied: Denied: JUDGE PRESIDING NO. 94-10-5861-E STANCIL LLOYD SANFORD, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS, ET AL. 357TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY'S EXHIBIT LIST NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 1 Analysis of fiber release from certain asbestos products. GCA Corporation-Technology Division-Dec. 1982. 2 Asbestos Exposure from gasket operations. Naval Regional Medical Center - May 1978. 3 An evaluation of simulated field use of various asbestos containing packing materials. Stephen W. Campbell, CSP, CIHMay 1983. 4 The Actual Contribution of Garlock Asbestos Gasket Materials to the Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Workers. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - October 1982. 5 The Actual Occupational Exposure to Airborne Asbestos Released by Garlock Spiral Wound, Braided and Encapsulated Gaskets. Carl A. Mangold, CIH -December 1982. 6 The Actual Contribution of Asbestos Fiber Exposure During Gasket Removal from Pipe Flanges Aboard Ship. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - November 1983. 7 Affidavit of William J. Nicholson, PhD - November 1983.. 8 Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Lee B. Reichman- October 1987. 9 Garlock, Inc. Gasket Materials - A Comparison of the Tyndall Phenomena to the Actual Concentration of Asbestos Fibers in the Breathing Zone of Workers. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - July 1986. 10 Asbestos - fiber exposure related to the replacement of Garlock Style 7021 gaskets. Neilson Associates- May 1981. 11 An evaluation of potential occupational exposure to airborne asbestos during the installation and removal of braided asbestos gasket material. Neilson Associates- April 1982. 12 An industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the utili2ation of style S880. Neilson Associates - June 1980. EXHIBIT LIST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 13 Ad industrial hygiene survey to determine airborne asbestos fiber concentrations during the cutting Garlock Gasket material types 900 and 7021. Neilson Associates- June 1980. 14 An industrial hygiene survey to determine airbom asbestos fiber concentrations during the utilization of Garlock gasket materialStyle 7021. Neilson Associations- October 1980. 15 An evaluation of potential occupational exposure to airborne asbestos fibers encountered during installation and removal of asbestos containing gaskets-Gasket Type 604. Neilson AssociatesApril 1982. 16 Fiber release on asbestos valve packing material of the Crane Packing Company, Morton Grove, Illinois. Michael Matteson, School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. 17 Use of John Crane Packing in the railroad industry. Arthur D. Little, Inc.- June 1985. 18 Structure Probe-Technical report A.W. Chesterton No. 31334Construction analysis research investigation of 25 gasket and packing samples using polarized light microscopy, dispersion staining and infrared spectroscopy techniques. June 30, 1988. 19 Structure Probe-Technical report No. 31292-Construction analysis research investigation of 23 gasket and packing Anchor samples using polarized light, microscopy, dispersion staining and infrared spectroscopy techniques. May 20, 1988. 20 Asbestos removal H.P. Turbine, boiler bottom. J.P. Carr, I.H.Febraary 28, 1984. 21 Hygeia, Inc., A.W. Chesterton Company, testing of packing and gasket materials, Project No. 5617. March 1989. 22 The Actual Release of Asbestos Fibers from New, Used and Flanged Garlock Inc. Asbestos Gasket Materials. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - September 1985. 23 Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices for 1987 1988. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 24 Technical report occupational exposure of asbestos during gasket handling and processing at Anchor Packing Company. McCrone Project No. ME-5396- October 1988. 2 EXHIBIT LIST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 25 Report of Robert Liptai-December 23, 1983. 26 Asbestos Fibers in the Ambient Air in the Greater San Francisco Area. Carl A. Mangold, CIH - March 1983. 27 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - opening of old flanges and removal of asbestos gaskets; Mangold 1989. 28 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - cutting gaskets with a circular cutter; Mangold 1989. 29 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - gasket cutting with hand shears; Mangold 1989. 30 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - gasket cutting with a ball pein hammer; Mangold 1989. 31 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the . Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - scribing of gasket materials; Mangold 1989. 32 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - flange face scraping with putty knife; Mangold 1989. 33 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - hand wire brushing of asbestos gasket residual from flanges; Mangold 1989. 34 The Actual Contribution of Airborne Asbestos Fibers to the Occupational Exposure of By-Standers During Selected Processing of Encapsulated Asbestos Gaskets - power wire brushing of flange faces; Mangold 1989. 35 Industrial hygiene reports from Shell Oil regarding gaskets and packing. 3 EXHIBIT UST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861- _ NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 36 OSHA-CFR-Occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. Final rules-Friday, June 20, 1986. Amendments May 12, 1987. 37 OSHA-CFR-Asbestos NESHAP revision, including disposal of asbestos containing materials removed from schools. Tuesday, January 10, 1989. 38 OSHA - CFR - Title 29 - Part 1910. December 7, 1971. 39 OSHA - CFR - Title 29 - Part 1910. June 7, 1972. 40 Federal Register - Environmental Protection Agency - 40 CFR Part 763. July 12, 1989. 41 Federal Register-Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR parts 61 and 763. January 10, 1989. 42 NIOSH Heta 87-017-1949 Health hazard evaluation report. United Rubber Works. 43 The Actual Contribution of Asbestos Fibers from Removal and Installation of Asbestos Packing from Valves. Carl A. Mangold, CIH and Robert L. Gay, PhD - May 1991. 44 Report on the Measurement of Fiber Release from simulated Steam-Stressed Durable Gaskets (120, 160, 190 degrees for 5 hours) for Health Hazard Evaluation. AM Langer, RP Nolan, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, January 31, 1992. 45 Report on the Measurement of Fiber Release from simulated Steam-Stressed Durable Gaskets (250 degrees Celsius for 30 days) for Health Hazard Evaluation. AM Langer, RP Nolan, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, December 9, 1992. 46 Report on the Measurement of Fiber Release from simulated Steam-Stressed Durable Gaskets (120, 160, 190 degrees for 5 days) for Health Hazard Evaluation. AM Langer, RP Nolan, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, November 6, 1992. 47 Nonmetallic Gaskets for Pipe Flanges - American Standard ASA B16.21 -1951 - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. DATE ADMIT N/AD 4 EXHIBIT UST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 48 Nonmetallic Gaskets for Pipe Flanges - American Standard ASA B16.21 - 1962 - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 49 Nonmetallic Flat Gaskets for Pipe Flanges - American Standard ASA B16.21 - 1978 - The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 50 Asbestos, Manufacture, Importation, Processing and Distribution Prohibitions - Federal Register - EPA - 40 CFR Part 763 [(OPPTS - 62114A:FRL - 4635-7)]. 51 Final Report Actual Asbestos Fiber Release During Gasket Removal Work Practices. 8/23/91. 52 Materials Survey Asbestos - National Security Resources Board US Dept, of the Interior Bureau of Mines 2/52. 53 Heating and Cooling for Man in Industry - American Industrial Hygiene Association - 1970. 54 Asbestos in Public & Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Analyses of Selected Data Previously Considered by the Literature Review Panel. Health Effects Institute - Asbestos Research 1992. 55 "Asbestos and Disease" I. J. Selikoff and D. H. K. Lee; Academic Press 1978 pp. 17, 464-467, 477. 56 Final Report: Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards for Construction and General Industry. Contract Number J-9-F-8-0033, Task Order 4, Option Year 1. Prepared for U.S. Dept, of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Office of Regulatory Analysis. Prepared by: CONSAD Research Corporation, July 27, 1990. 57 Ambient Water Quality Criteria For Asbestos. Prepared by U. S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington D.C., EPA 440/5-80-022, October, 1980. 58 1994 Illinois Register, Rules of Government Agencies, Vol. 18, Issue 39, September 30, 1994, pp. 14521-14829. 59 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 Federal Register Vol. 59 No. 153, August 10, 1994, p. 40904. - 60 U.S.S. Chemicals Survey Report, "Asbestos Gasket Grinding Simulation," December 16, 1980; prepared by J. P. Koch. 5 EXHIBIT UST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-I0-586I-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 61 U.S.S. Chemicals Survey Report, "Asbestos Exposure Evaluations USS Chemicals - Neville Island," May 17, 1984; prepared by S. D. Stockton, CIH - approved by F. M. Tora, PH.P, CIH. 62 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/23/91, 91-LGE-08, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. 63 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 9/8/91, 91LGE-24, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 64 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 9/20, 23,24/91, 91-LGE-25, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 65 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 10/1,2,8/91, 91-LGE-28, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 66 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 9/30/91 to 10/24/91, 91-LGE-26, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 67 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 11/4/91, 91-LGE-38, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 68 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 12/28, 29/91, 91-LGE-43, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 69 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/10/92, 92-LGE-02, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 70 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/17/92, 91-LGE-05, Can Run Power Plant, Louisville, KY. 71 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/16/92, 92-LGE-04, Trimble County, Louisville, KY. 72 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 1/31/92, 92-LGE-08, Trimble County, Louisville, KY. 73 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 2/13/92, 92-LGE-14, Can Run Power Plant, Louisville, KY. 74 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/3/92, 92LGE-21, AC & S Shop, Louisville, KY. 75 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/25/92, 92-LGE-37, The King's Daughter & Son Nursing Home, Louisville, KY. 76 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/3/92, 92LGE-40, Trimble County, Louisville, KY. DATE ADMIT N/AD _________ 6 EXHIBIT LIST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ DATE ADMIT N/AD 77 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/27/92, 92-LGE-38, Taylor Boulevard, Louisville, KY. 78 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/27/92, 92-LGE-38, Custom Chrome, Louisville, KY. 79 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/27/92, 92-LGE-38, Portland Station, Louisville, KY. 80 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/22/92, 92-LGE-50, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 81 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/29/92, 92-LGE-56, Ford Truck Plant, Louisville, KY. 82 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/12/92, 92-LGE-61, 11th Sc Main Streets, Louisville, KY. 83 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/15/92, 92-LGE-63, Doe Run Station, Louisville, KY. 84 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing A/24192, 92-LGE-55, Gas Department, Louisville, KY. 85 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 3/11/92, 92-LGE-29, Magnolia Compressor Station, Louisville, KY. 86 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/6/92, 92* LGE-41, Penille Road Station, Louisville, KY. 87 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/21/92, 92-LGE-48-1, Muldraugh, Louisville, KY. 88 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/22/92, 92-LGE-48-3, Muldraugh, Louisville, KY. 89 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 5/26/92, 92-LGE-66, BOC Gas Control & Storage Louisville, KY. 90 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/22-29/92, 92-LGE-55, Various Regulator and Relief Pits, Louisville, KY. 91 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 6/15/92, 92-LGE-71, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. 92 DMR Sc Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/16/92, 92-LGE-45, Crestwood Area, Louisville, KY. 93 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 4/20/92, 92-LGE-47, Muldraugh, Louisville, KY. 7 EXHIBIT UST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD 94 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/10/92, 92-LGE-73, Magnolia Facility, Louisville, KY. 95 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/6-10/92, 92-LGE-72, Muldraugh Compressor, Louisville, KY. 96 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/21-22/92, 92-LGE-75, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 97 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/27/92, 92-LGE-76, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. 98 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/28/92, 92-LGE-79-1, 4th & Brandies Streets, Louisville, KY. 99 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/29/92, 92-LGE-79-2, Lexin & Braeview Streets, Louisville, KY. 100 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/30/92, 92-LGE-79-3, Belmont & Bardstown, Louisville, KY 101 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/30/92, 92-LGE-81, St. Helen's Station, Louisville, KY. 102 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 7/31/92, 92-LGE-82, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 103 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing 8/3/92, 92LGE-79-5, 3rd & Collins Station, Louisville, KY. 104 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 92-LGE83, Trimble County Station, Louisville, KY. 105 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 8/6/92, 92-LGE-84, Magnolia Station, Louisville, KY. 106 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 8/26/92, 92-LGE-86, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 107 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 10/5/92, 92-LGE-92, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 108 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 10/29 30/92, 92-LGE-97, Mill Creek Station, Louisville, KY. 109 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 3/22, 29/93, 93-LGE-16, Palmer Ball, Louisville, KY. 110 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 5/12/93, 93-LGE-23 , 834 E. Broadway Street, Louisville, KY. EXHIBIT LIST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-.. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE OFFR OBJ ADMIT N/AD Ill DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 11/3/93, 93-LGE-43, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 112 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 6/7/94, 94-LGE-37, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 113 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 6/7/94, 94-LGE-34, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 114 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 8/9/94, 94-LGE-42, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 115 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 5/26/92, 92-LGE-66, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 116 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 6/2-3/92, 92-LGE-68, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 117 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 7/13/92, 92-LGE-79-4, Louisville, KY. 118 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 10/5-8/93, Major Locomotive Repair Facility During Gasket Removal. 119 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 5/12/94, 94-LGE-28, Muldraugh Station, Louisville, KY. 120 British Standard for Asbestos Exposure. 1969 No. 609 Factories. The Asbestos Regulations 1969. 121 British Department of Employment Technical Data Note 24. Asbestos Regulations 1969. Respiratory Protective Equipment. 122 British The Asbestosis Research Council Technical Note 13. Standard for Asbestos Dust Concentration for use with the Asbestos Regulations 1969. 123 British - The Asbestosis Research Council Technical Note 2. Dust Sampling Procedures for use with The Asbestos Regulations 1969. 124 Air Sampling for Asbestos During Maintenance Activities at Trinity River Authority of Texas Central Regional Wastewater System. Grand Prairie, Tx, May 31, 1991. Technical Safety and Health Counseling Inc. 125 Technical report for Garlock, Inc.. Occupational exposures During Proscessing, Handling, Installation and Removal of Garlock Asbestos-Containing Gaskets. McCrone Project No. ME1537- June 1985. 9 * EXHIBIT LIST OF THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY CASE NO. 94-10-5861-E NO. DESCRIPTION OFFR OBJ 126 DMR & Associates, Donna M. Ringo Gasket Testing, 3/17, 18/92, Trimble County, Louisville, Kentucky 127 Curriculam Vitae of Robert N. Sawyer, M.D. 128 Curriculam Vitae of Larry Liukonen 129 Any and all medical records of plaintiff including but not limited to documentary, x-rays, photographs of pathological materials, and reports of Defendant's expert witnesses. 130 The income tax and work records of plaintiff. 131 The Curricula vitae of any and all expert witnesses called by other parties. 132 Any and all exhibits listed by other parties or otherwise identified during the course of the proceedings in this case. 133 Photographs of Garlock Products and Naval Shipyards. 134 Not used 135 Samples of Garlock and Anchor Asbestos Products. 136 Curriculum Vitae of Donna M. Ringo, C.I.H. 137 Curriculum Vitae of Carl Mangold, C.I.H. DATE ADMIT N/AD Finally, The Anchor Packing Company reserves the right to introduce exhibits not designated herein for the purpose Of impeachment or rebuttal. Respectfully submitted. BROWN McCARROLL & OAKS HARTLINE, A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS KENNETH S. WALL STATE BAR NO. 20756790 MELISSA FERRELL 10 STATE BAR NO. 06937020 1300 Wortham Tower 2727 Allen Partway Houston, Texas 77019-2100 Phone: <713) 529-3110 Fax: (713) 525-6295 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing instrument was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Plaintiffs and by regular mail to all other counsel of record on the day of , 1995. " K:\PS\ANCHORV73923.l-L K:\PS1ANCHOR\53085.1-S 16436.69466 11