Document rem0NexDpb4ggyERmXm7e4YvV

IL036D.ASB 10/17/94 8TATE OP ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF MACON ROSE NEATHERY, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Ralph Neathery, deceased, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 93 L 54 DEFENDANT/ OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 8BT OF INTERROGATORIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' Interrogatories apparently occurred more than thirty-five years ago. In addition, effective April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois, Inc. disposed of the business involved in this action by way of sale of that business to OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation. Since that time, Owens-Illinois, Inc. has not engaged in the asbestos-containing insulation products manufacturing business. It does not now and it has not since that sale manufactured, distributed or sold any of its Kaylo asbestos-containing insulation products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which plaintiffs' interrogatories relate are deceased, or are otherwise unavailable to Owens-Illinois, Inc., and investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these interrogatories were transferred to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation with the transfer of the business in question in 1958. Owens-Illinois, Inc. is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate, confirm the transfer of, or confirm the absence of, such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation into the matters inquired about in these interrogatories. Unless otherwise stated in an answer to a specific interrogatory, the answers set out hereinafter are limited to the period during which Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every answer provided hereinafter: This answer is accurate as of the date made. However, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s investigation is continuing, and Owens-Illinois, Inc. cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to answering this interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the manufacture and sale of the Kaylo products alleged to be involved in this case which ended in mid-1958 or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such answer would be irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Commencing in 1963 and continuing through 1977, Kimble Glass Company, a unit of Owens-Illinois, Inc., offered for sale gaskets, inserts and spacers as accessory parts intended for use in conjunction with Kimble's conical end glass piping system. Some of these accessory parts contained asbestos as one of their ingredients. These accessory parts were not manufactured by Kimble, but were purchased from other suppliers. From approximately 1966 through 1977, the Kimble Division also offered for sale a field beading kit which included a small plate and a 2 covering over each of two small hoses. The plate and hose coverings may possibly have contained asbestos, but OwensIllinois cannot yet confirm the ingredients of these materials based upon its business records presently reviewed. Kimble also sold Glass Lined Reactors manufactured by Schwelm for a period of time presently unknown which incorporated gaskets containing asbestos as one of their ingredients. At the end of 1977, OwensIllinois transferred its interest in the glass pipe and Schwelm Reactor product lines and related assets to 01/Schott Process Systems, Inc. in exchange for 50% of the stock of the Corporation and, pursuant to a Sales Agreement dated May 24, 1990, sold its interest in 01/Schott Process Systems, Inc. to Schott Corporation. From 1982 through 1985, Kontes Glass Company, a subsidiary of Owens-Illinois during that time period, purchased certain asbestos-containing materials from other manufacturers and incorporated those materials into four of its products. Based upon the information available to Owens-Illinois to date concerning the nature of Plaintiff's claim, it is Owens-Illinois* understanding that the only Owens-Illinois asbestos-containing product to which the Plaintiff alleges exposure is Kaylo. Therefore, Owens-Illinois objects to responding to these interrogatories in regard to the above described asbestoscontaining products sold by Kimble Glass Company and Kontes Glass Company on the basis that any such answer would be irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would be burdensome and oppressive. In the event that Owens-Illinois is subsequently informed that the Plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos-containing products sold by Kimble Glass Company or Kontes Glass Company, Owens-Illinois will supplement these answers to interrogatories within a reasonable time after receiving such notice to the extent that a supplementation is necessary in order to respond to the interrogatories in light of the alleged exposure to asbestos- 3 containing products sold by either Kimble Glass Company or Kontes Gli Company. INTERROGATOR!E8 Q. l. Have these interrogatories been answered fully and in good faith to the extent of the actual knowledge and information available to Defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., its insurance carrier(s) and attorneys as required by Battershell v. Bowman Dairy Co., 37 111. App. 2d 193, 201 (1st Dist. 1961)? A. 1. This Defendant states that it has referred to the relevant business records of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, which are still in the possession of Owens- Illinois, Inc., in connection with the preparation of answers to these interrogatories unless otherwise indicated. Q. 2. Is the Defendant, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., a corporation? If so, state: (a) the exact corporate name; (b) the state of incorporation; (c) ` the name and address and position within Defendant of the person providing sworn answers to these interrogatories. A. 2. Owens-Illinois Glass Company was incorporated in the State of Ohio in 1929. Owens-Illinois Glass Company changed its name to Owens-Illinois, Inc. on April 28, 1965. Due to corporate restructuring in 1987, this defendant is now a Delaware corporation. Howard G. Bruss, Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666. 4 Q. 3. Has anyone obtained from any person a statement (L aether oral or written, signed or unsigned) concerning the occurrence involved in this cause of action? If so, state as to each statement: (a) the name and last known address of the person making the statement; was taken; (b) when, where and by whom the statement (c) is there any tangible preservation of the statement, such as a document signed by the person making the statement, a tape-recording, a transcript or a memorandum purporting to reflect what was said? (d) if your answer to (c) is affirmative, state the name and address of the person having possession of the tangible preservation of the statement. A. 3. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 4. Has any private firm or company adjustor been directed to investigate the occurrence or ask questions of persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the occurrence? If so, state the full name and address of each firm or adjustor. 5 A 44. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as be. ..j irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this cas*e. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 5. Do you have any information regarding Ralph Neathery's physical condition other than that information furnished you by the Plaintiff's counsel? If so, state the nature of that information, the name and address of its source, and if documentary in nature, who now has each. A. 5. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 6. Were any photos taken of Ralph Neathery? If so, state the total number of photos, the date of each photo, and who has each. 6 A. 6. ,1s defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irre: ant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 7. Were you named or covered under any policy of liability insurance, effective on the date of the occurrence, which may be construed to provide coverage for any claim stated in the Complaint? If so, as to each policy, state: (a) the name of the company; (b) the policy number; (c) the effective period; (d) the maximum liability limits for: (1) injury to any one person; (2) aggregate personal injury limits; (e) what amounts, if any, have previously been paid under the policy which in the opinion of the carrier reduces the coverage available; (f) whether the carrier denied coverage or tendered a defense under a reservation of rights; (g) whether the policy contains any first party medical pay or disability coverage, and, if so, describe the coverage. 7 A. 7. This deff' idant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it i i.ks irrelevant and immaterial information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Expressly reserving and without waiving its objections, and subject to them, this defendant states that the issues surrounding its insurance Coverage for asbestos claims are complex. Because of disputes over possible insurance coverage, this defendant has engaged in litigation against certain insurance carriers which may provide coverage for asbestos claims. One such lawsuit resulted in a decision of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia in Owens-Illinois. Inc, v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 597 F.Supp. 1515 (D.D.C. 1984). The litigation between this defendant and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. has been settled. The terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are confidential, and as a consequence, the parties are precluded from disclosing the terms or contents of the agreement. Litigation with other insurance carriers is ongoing. Q. 8. Which, if any, of the carriers listed in your answer to the preceding interrogatory are providing a defense to this suit? A. Interrogatory No. 7. 8. Refer to objection and answer to Q. 9. Identify those expert witnesses (as defined in Supreme Court Rule 220(a)(1) from whom you may offer opinion testimony at trial, and for each such expert, state: (a) his name, current address, telephone number, occupation, and employer; 8 (b) the subject matter *>n which the expert is expected to testify; basis therefore; (c) his conclusions and opinions and the (d) his qualifications, including all formal education subsequent to high school, a history of his employment and the citation to each of his published writings; (e) the amount paid, or agreed to be paid to him, specifying his hourly rate of compensation; (f) the name of the first plaintiff, first defendant, the court in which filed, and the cause number for every cause in which such expert has testified, whether at deposition or trial, and the date of his testimony. A. 9. The identity of expert witnesses to be called at trial is not known at the present time. This defendant reserves the right to designate at a later date expert witnesses to be used at trial. Q. 10. Identify with specificity any documents, objects, and tangible things, as defined in Supreme Court Rule 214, which are or were in the possession of any consulting expert as defined in Supreme Court Rule 220 which do not contain the consulting expert's opinion. A. 10. This defendant objects to revealing the name of any expert whom it has consulted, except as to employment for testimony at trial on the grounds of: (a) the work product privilege; (b) attorney-client privilege; (c) the interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9 Q. 11. Has Defendant ever had on* -r more persons whose primary responsibility included looking ~ter or monitoring the health of Defendant's employees, such as a medical director? If so, state the following as to dach person who has held this position: (a) the name and address of the person; held; (b) the name of the position he or she the position; (c) the dates during which he or she held (d) the address of his or her office during the time he or she held the position; (e) state whether there was a written job description for that position at that time; (f) if there was a written job description, set forth the words of the description or attach a copy hereto. A. 11. Charles Shook, M.D., deceased, employed from March 25, 1946 until June 30, 1960 was the Medical Director during the period in which this defendant manufactured, sold or distributed its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. He reported to the Vice President of Corporate Staff, Director of Corporate Personnel. This defendant's chief medical officer is responsible for assuring and promoting preventive and corrective medical programs, services and practices to protect and preserve employee health and productivity throughout Owens-Illinois, Inc. The individual in this position develops, organizes, introduces and implements pre-employment and periodic examinations as well as new health programs in order to insure the continued well being of defendant's employees in a safe and healthy environment. The person in this position is also responsible for the quality of medical services at Owens-Illinois locations. 10 Q. 12. Has Defendant ever directed or contributed money toward a study of the effects of asbestos exposure upon the health of some or all of its employees? state the following as to each such study: If so / study; (a) the description or title of the (b) the dates during which it was made; (c) the location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed; (d) the number of employees studied; (e) brief description of the study; (f) whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. A. 12. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestoscontaining products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 11 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust and that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust. The foregoing documents also indicate that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease; that this defendant made appropriate efforts to provide ventilation and to control the emissions of all dust emitted during the manufacturing process within recognized safe levels of exposure, including the use of respirators in some instances, dust collection equipment and other devices as necessary; and that therefore during the period in which this defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the foreseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. 12 Q. 13. Have there been any studies of the effect of asbestos exposure upon the health of any of Defendant's employees? If so, state: study; (a) the description dr title of the (b) the dates during which it was made; (c) the location or locations of the plants at which the employees were employed; (d) the number of employees studied; (e) brief description of the study; (f) whether any of the results were reported into written form, and if so, who now has a copy of the report. A. 13. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Q. 14. known as asbestosis? Is there a disease or disease process A. 14. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. Further, this defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. 13 asbestos? Q. 15 Is asbestosis caused by exposure to A. 15. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "caused" is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Without waiving the above objection, during the period of time in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products, it was this defendant's understanding that the inhalation of asbestos dust in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), under certain conditions, could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However, in 1958 and before and for some years thereafter, the state of the medical and scientific knowledge was to the effect that there was a safe level of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without risk of injury and to the effect that persons such as plaintiffs were not exposed to excessive amounts of asbestos. Q. 16. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when did Defendant first learn that asbestosis was caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 16. Refer to objection to Interrogatory No. 15. To the extent this interrogatory inquires as to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by other defendants, this defendant states that it does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this interrogatory, nor can it locate any present employees with knowledge thereof. Insofar as this interrogatory inquires as to Kaylo asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant, this defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, 14 sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products effective April 30, 1958, and has not engaged in such business since. During May 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information relating to the substance of this interrogatory. This defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this defendant has not copied. This defendant also has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. They are available through Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, 25 E. Salem Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. Other documents possibly relating to this interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. Those documents indicate that experiments referred to in the documents produced by Mr. Logie were published in an AMA publication in September 1955. As with the documents produced by Mr. Logie, the documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation have not been found as part of this defendant's records. The foregoing documents indicate that during the time in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products, its products contained a relatively small proportion of asbestos when compared to other asbestos-containing products in use during and prior to the same period of time. It appears that this defendant's employees at its asbestos product manufacturing plants were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos- 15 rela'.'i chest disease, although in the course of their employment they-.:'are exposed to the raw materials of this defendant's products as well as the dust of the finished product. Furthermore, these documents indicate that there were no worker's compensation claims filed by its employees for asbestos-related diseases. It was this defendant's understanding of the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge that exposure to asbestos in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), in the conditions typically experienced in factories, workshops, and possibly mines and mills could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However, the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge was also to the effect that there was a safe level (threshold limit value) of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without risk of injury. This defendant was aware of the threshold limit value for asbestos as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in the 1940's and 1950's through publications by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, ACGIH and from the above referenced "Logie" and "OCF" documents. In addition, it appears that an employee of this defendant subscribed to and received the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology which contained in January 1946 an article published by the Navy entitled, "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," by Fleischer, Viles, Gade and Drinker. This article stated that persons who worked as insulators in shipyards were not exposed and did not work in conditions similar to those experienced in factories, workshops, mines and mills, and were not exposed to levels of asbestos above the recognized safe limits. Therefore, the article concluded that such persons were not engaged in a hazardous occupation. From the foregoing papers, reports and articles, this defendant had no reason to believe that exposure 16 to its Kaylo - Vvestos-containing products would result in a foreseeable r a of harm to users. This defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery and the case warrant. This defendant has reason to believe that plaintiffs' counsel is in possession of a substantial library of asbestos-related literature containing articles that defendant may wish to rely upon. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the production of documents, such documents, as outlined in this response, have not been found as part of this defendant's records and, to the extent that this defendant is in possession of copies of documents, it possesses copies only of documents collected in preparation for litigation. This defendant objects to producing the same. The documents are available from their proper source. Q. 17. known as lung cancer? Is there a disease or disease process A. 17. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. to asbestos? Q. 18. Can lung cancer be caused by exposure A. 18. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term "caused" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer and asbestos 17 was first accepted by -*dical science after the period of time defendant ceased the ? nufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was tHere reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. Q. 19. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when did Defendant first learn that lung cancer can be caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 19. Interrogatory No. 18. Refer to objection and answer to Q. 20. Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of lung cancer? A. 20. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the phrase "increase the incidence" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objection, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer. 18 Q. 21. ifStyour answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirm', -ive, state when Defendant first learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of lung cancer. A. 21. Interrogatory No. 20. Refer to objection and answer to Q. 22. known as mesothelioma? Is there a disease or disease process A. 22. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Q. 23. exposure to asbestos? Can mesothelioma be caused by A. 23. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis'that the term "caused" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between mesothelioma and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting mesothelioma. 19 Q. 24. If your am er to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, wl.wn did Defendant first learn that mesothelioma can be caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 24. Interrogatory No. 23. Refer to objection and answer to Q. 25. Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of mesothelioma? A. 25. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term "increase the incidence" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between mesothelioma and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting mesothelioma. Q. 26. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state when Defendant first learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of mesothelioma. A. 26. Interrogatory No. 25. Refer to objection and answer to 20 Q. 27. Is there a disease r known as cancer of the gastrointestinal tract? disease process A. 27. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it constitutes an improper form of discovery in that plaintiff, in effect, is submitting a disguised request for admission. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks an expert medical opinion which this defendant is not qualified to render. Q. 28. Can cancer of the gastrointestinal tract be caused by exposure to asbestos? A. 28. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term NcausedN is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer of the gastrointestinal tract and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. Q. 29. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, when did Defendant first learn that cancer of the gastrointestinal tract can be caused by exposure to asbestos? 21 A. 29. Interrogatory No. 28. Refer to objection and answe to Q. 30. Does exposure to asbestos increase the incidence of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract? A. 30. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the phrase "increase the incidence" is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant further objects on the basis that its present knowledge is irrelevant to this action in that evidence of a causal connection between cancer of the gastrointestinal tract and asbestos was first accepted by medical science after the period of time defendant ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, defendant is informed and believes that at no time prior to 1958 was there reason to believe that the medical and scientific community accepted that there was a causal connection established between exposure to asbestos and a risk of contracting cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. Q. 31. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state when Defendant first learned that exposure to asbestos increased the incidence of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. A. 31. Interrogatory No. 30. Refer to objection and answer to 22 Q. 32. List the following information for each claim brought against Defendant by a present or former employee of Defendant or the spouse or child of a deceased such employee alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: (a) the name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; of ill-being began; (b) when the alleged disease or condition (c) the circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos; (d) whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; (e) the agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. A. 32. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, during the period in which this defendant engaged in the manufacture of its asbestos-containing products, it received no workers' compensation claims for any asbestosrelated disease. Q. 33. List the following information for each claim, not identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, brought against Defendant by a present or former employee of Defendant or the spouse or child of a deceased employee alleging a disease or condition of ill-being caused by asbestos: 23 a) the name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of ill-being; of ill-being began; b) when the alleged disease or condition c) the circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos; d) whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; e) the agency where the claim was filed, the docket number of the claim and the date the claim was filed. A. 33. Interrogatory No. 32. Refer to objection and answer to Q. 34. List the following information for each claim or report, not identified in your answer to any preceding interrogatory, alleging a disease or condition of ill- being caused by asbestos or an asbestos containing product sold by Defendant: a) the name and address of the person alleged to be diseased or in a condition of illbeing; b) when the alleged disease or condition of ill-being began; c) the circumstances under which the employee is alleged to have come into contact with asbestos sold by you; d) whether the person is represented by an attorney, and if so, the name and address of his attorney; e) whether the claim has resulted in a lawsuit against you, and if so, the court where the suit was filed, the docket number of the suit, and the d$te the suit was filed. 24 X. 34. these interrogatories. Refer to this defendant's answers to Q. 35. List the following information regarding each document (as defined in Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) authored by an employee of Defendant in the course of his employment, dealing in whole or in part with the consequences of exposure to asbestos: (a) name, title or other means of identification of the document; (b) name, position at time document authored, and current address, position and employer of each author of the document; (c) date prepared or published; (d) the name and address of the entity responsible for its publication and/or distribution; (e) if available in typewritten or printed form, the number of pages. X. 35. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. Q- 35. When did Defendant first sell asbestos or products containing asbestos? 25 A. 36. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestoscontaining products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. This defendant does not now and has not in the past engaged in the mining, milling or selling asbestos. Q. 37. Does Defendant still sell asbestos or products containing asbestos? If not, when did Defendant stop selling? A. 37. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, no. This defendant ceased all involvement in the manufacture of Kaylo asbestos-containing insulation products in 1958. Q. 38. List the following information about each different type (as opposed to different sizes of the same 26 ttype) of asbestos containing product manufactured or sold by ^Defendant: (a) brand or trade name; (b) description; (c) uses Defendant recommended of it; (d) asbestos content; (e) dates of manufacture and/or sale. A. 38. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection: (a) Kaylo. (b) This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. It believes that Kaylo and Kaylo-20 were premolded, light density rigid products, and were manufactured in two forms, block and pipe covering. Kaylo was white or off-white in color, and Kaylo-20 was pinkish in color. (c) The Kaylo asbestos-containing products manufactured by this defendant were intended to be used for industrial high temperature thermal insulation such as pipe covering and block insulation, and to increase fireproofing and fire protection and for insulation through use as a roof deck or fireproof material or door core material. (d) This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestoscontaining products in 1958. Its investigation as to the composition of each such product, including the type of asbestos contained therein (i.e., amosite or chrysotile) and the quantitative percentage of asbestos, is continuing, although this 27 interrogatory, y-'wever, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbe .os was given in that it does not appear that this defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. Further, this defendant does not now and has not in the past engaged in the mining, milling or selling asbestos. Q. 40. If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the following as to the first information Defendant received that exposure to asbestos caused disease: a) e.q.. orally, in writing; the form in which it was received, b) if orally, the name and address of the person from whom received; c) if the information was received in written form, give the author, title of the document, and date of the document; d) the name and address of the employee or employees who received the information; e) briefly describe the information. A. 40. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 39. Q. 41. If your answer to the second preceding interrogatory was affirmative, list the name and address of each employee who was responsible to investigate whether: a) the warnings were reaching the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products; 29 the warnings were being read by the persons who were breathi .. and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing prod' cts; c) the warnings werd being understood by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products; d) the warnings were being heeded by the persons who were breathing and/or ingesting the asbestos from the asbestos containing products. A. 41. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 39. Q. 42. Did Defendant ever have one or more employees who routinely performed the task of sawing asbestos containing products? If so, state the following: a) the name and address of each plant at which the process was conducted, and the inclusive period of years during which the process was conducted, at that plant; b) the number of employees who performed the task for one year or more; c) the name and address of each employee who performed the task for one year or more at one of Defendant's plants and who was known by Defendant to be free of asbestos disease 25 years or more after having first performed the task for at least one year. A. 42. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant has not found information in its 30 records sufficient to enable it v>o answer this interrogatory. Further, this defendant has neve. ^ formed nor maintained a group or groups known as "contract units," such "contract units" being a division or group within or maintained by the corporation which, inter alia, engaged in the actual installation of insulation products containing asbestos at job sites. Q. 43. List the following information regarding each worker or group of workers who, as of 1990, had used containing ovens for 25 years or more and were known by Defendant to be free of asbestos disease: a) current name and address; b) asbestos product usage; location(s) and inclusive dates of c) date(s) of the examination(s) which revealed the worker to be free of asbestos disease. A. 43. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objections, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 44. List the following information regarding each instance where an employee of Defendant testified (at deposition or trial) in asbestos disease litigation: a) name of employee; 31 b) date and plac' testimony was given; c) first named p.jintiff and defendant, case number and court in which pending; d) name and address of reporter; testimony. e) whether you have a transcript of the A. 44. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestoscontaining products in 1958. This defendant is aware that the following present or former employees have testified at trial or by deposition in asbestos-related litigation: Edward C. Ames: 10/8/79, 1/10/80, 2/12/81, 3/26/81 and 10/7/81. Robert Grim: 9/6 & 7/84 (trial), 10/11/84 (trial), 7/1/87 (trial), 12/12/90 (trial), 1/31/91 (trial), 10/23/91 (trial), and 1/13/92 (trial). Richard L. Grimmie: 7/10/79, 10/24/79 (trial), and 10/29/79 (trial). David Innis: 9/27/83. William Justice: 7/11/79 and 5/3/82. John Pershing: 7/26/79. John Rhoads: 7/11/79. June Welser: 7/11/79. Everett Shuman: 4/26/79, 6/12/79, 7/15/80, 8/19/80, and 3/4/81. Willis G. Hazard: 2/11/81, 3/27/81, 12/14/81, and 1/27/82. Howard G. Bruss, Esq.: 6/29/93. David Van Hooser: 8/11/93 (trial) 32 Michael E. McConnell, Esq.: 10/25/90. 2"'>:/89 and Richard R. Beck: 4/1/81. Samuel F. Schillaci: 4/7/81, 7/31/81 (trial), 11/9/81 (trial), 11/17/81 (trial), 4/26-27/82, 6/4/84, 8/28/84, 9/6/84, 11/14/84, 2/5/85, 3/4/85 (trial), 4/30/85, 12/19/85 (trial), 10/8/86, 4/10/87 (trial), 6/25/87 (trial), 11/4/87 (trial), 1/20/88, 9/20/88 (trial), 10/15/88 (trial), 11/14/88 (trial), 11/22/88 (trial), 11/29/88 (trial), 12/8/88 (trial), 12/15/88 (trial), 3/14/89, 3/21/89, 3/28/89 (trial), 5/9/89 (trial), 6/15/89, 6/30/89 (trial), 7/7/89 (trial), 7/27/89, 8/18/89 (trial), 11/2/89 (trial), 11/6/89, 11/16/89 (trial), 11/17/89 (trial), 1/9/90 (trial), 1/31/90 (trial), 2/23/90 (trial), 3/14/90, 4/17-18/90, 4/24/90, 5/16/90 (trial), 5/24/90 (trial), 5/30/90 (trial), 6/8/90 (trial), 6/12/90 (trial), 6/20/90 (trial), 6/21/90 (trial), 6/29/90 (trial), 7/17/90 (trial), 7/19/90 (trial), 8/30/90 (trial), 10/11/90 (trial), 10/17/90, 11/20/90 (trial), 11/28/90 (trial), 12/11/90 (trial), 12/19/90 (trial), 1/24/91 (trial), 2/1/91 (trial), 2/22/91 (trial), 2/27/91, 3/8/91 (trial), 4/25/91 (trial), 4/26/91 (trial), 5/20/91 (trial), 6/13/91 (trial), 8/2/91 (trial), 8/8/91 (trial), 9/30/91 (trial), 10/8/91 (trial), 10/25/91 (trial), 10/30/91 (trial), 10/31/91 (trial), 11/4/91 (trial), 11/7/91 (trial), 11/13/91 (trial), 1/23/92 (trial), 1/28-29/92 (trial), 2/24/92 (trial), 12/15/92 (trial), 3/11/93 (trial), 3/12/93 (trial), 3/19/93 (trial), 5/21/93 (trial), 8/16/93 (trial), and 2/2/94 (trial). George N. Bates, M.D.: 4/6/81. Thomas A. Meehan, Esq.: 8/3/81 (trial), 11/9/81 (trial), 12/15/83, 1/16/84, 8/28/84, 6/4/84, and 11/13/84. Effective April 30, 1958, this defendant sold its asbestos-containing product manufacturing division to OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation. At that time certain employees who worked in the division, some of whom are mentioned above, 33 transferred to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. These individuals have been deposed with regard to asbestos-rel&.ed litigation involving Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. This defendant objects to the production of copies of the transcripts of these depositions on the basis that said transcripts are filed with various courts around the country, they are therefore matters of public record, and therefore plaintiffs have equal access to such documents. Defendant reserves the right to advance additional arguments against the production of such documents if and when plaintiffs file a request for production. Q. 45. List the following information regarding each instance where an individual whom you had listed, retained or called as an expert witness testified (at deposition or trial) in asbestos disease litigation: (a) name of employee; (b) date and place testimony was given; (c) first named plaintiff and defendant, case number and court in which pending; (d) name and address of reporter; testimony. (e) whether you have a transcript of the A. 45. This defendant objects to revealing the name of any expert whom it has consulted, except as to employment for testimony at trial on the grounds of: (a) the work product privilege; (b) attorney-client privilege; (c) the interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 34 Q. 46. List the name and address of all international unions and local unions which have represented employees of Defendant while the employees where using asbestos containing products or were being exposed to asbestos, and indicate the address of the plant or group of employees represented and the date of such representation. X. 46. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestoscontaining products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 47. Did any of the unions listed in your answer to the previous interrogatory ever instruct, advise or caution your employees on the safe handling of asbestos or precautions to be taken when working in airborne asbestos? If so, please state for each instruction, advice or warning: a) the name and address of the union and person instructing, advising or warning your employees; b) the method and content of the instruction, advice or warning; or warning; c) ' the dates of the instruction, advice d) whether the union ever promulgated, recommended or bargained for any regulations, standards or guidelines concerning the safe handling of asbestos or precautions to be taken when working in airborne asbestos. NOTE TO DEFENDANT: You may reproduce this page as many times as necessary so that you have a seperate page upon which to answer for each instruction, advice or warning. X. 47. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 46. 35 Q. 48. On what date did Defendant first become aware that asbestosis was a compensable occupational disease under a State Worker's Compensation Act? A. 48. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 49. Please describe the date, place and circumstances under which Defendant first became aware that any adverse effects of exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing materials may be cumulative in nature and that continued exposure to such materials by one suffering from asbestosis or related illnesses might have a significant adverse effect upon the extent and severity of such illness. In addition, please state: a) the specific identity of each source of information providing or leading to such awareness; and b) any change in Defendant's behavior, work rules, etc., precipitated by such awareness. A. 49. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which 36 this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 50. Did Defendant ever suggest or recommend that persons using or exposed to the dust from Defendant's asbestos containing products might or should use any device to reduce exposure to, or inhalation of, asbestos dust or fibers? If so, please state for each and every such suggestion or recommendation: a) date, time and place when each such suggestion or recommendation was made; b) identify each person present when such suggestion or recommendation was made to or received by Plaintiff; c) identify each person receiving same or similar suggestion or recommendation; e) whether such suggestions or recommendation was written or oral, and 1) if written, please identify in detail each such writing; 2) if oral, identify all persons involved and details as to the manner in which each such suggestion or recommendation was presented; f) type, make and model of each device referred to in each such suggestion or recommendation. A. 50. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the phrase "persons using or exposed" is vague, ambiguous, overly broad as not limited to end 37 users, seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestoscontaining products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant states that during the time it was involved in the Kaylo asbestos-containing products business, the state of scientific and medical art was to the effect that there was a safe lever of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without risks of injury and to the effect that persons such as plaintiffs were not exposed to excessive amounts of asbestos. Therefore, this defendant had no reason to believe that the use of its product would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. This defendant has not engaged in sufficient Discovery to further answer this interrogatory. This defendant reserves the right to further respond to this interrogatory at any time in the future. Q. 51. Identify all documents of which you have knowledge, including but not limited to medical articles, medical journals, case reports, textbooks, abstracts, or synopses, which you believe relate to your "state-of-the-art" defense. X. 51. The documents which this defendant intends to rely upon at trial are not known at the present time. This defendant reserves the right to designate documents to be used at trial at a later date. As a partial listing, however, the following materials may be relied upon: "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry," Dreessen, W.C. (1938); an article published in the Transactions of the Eleventh Annual Meeting, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, November 7, 1946 by J. J. Bloomfield; "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," Fleischer, Drinker, et al., 38 (IF r); "Asbestos Exposure During Naval Vessel Overhaul," Marr, Wil ..am T. (1964); "Prevalence of Chronic Respiratory Disease," Ferris, B. G., Jr. (1971); "Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma," Isselbacher, K. J. (1953); Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volumes 132 and 330; and the Threshold Limit Values promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists for the years 1946 through 1958. Q. 52. List the name and present address of all persons who have been a director in Defendant from the date of its incorporation to the present and list the dates during which the person was a director. A. 52. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Q. 53. List the name and current address of each person who has held any of the following offices in Defendant from the date of its incorporation to the present and also list the office held and the inclusive date during which the office was held: President, Vice-President; Secretary; and Treasurer. A. 53. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 39 Q. 54. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(e), idei vfy and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to how or why the occurrence described in the Compliint took place. A. 54. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 55. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(e), identify and give the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to the nature and extent of Ralph Neathery's injury. A. 55. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. 40 Qi5. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 213(e), identify an* .jive the location of those persons, not previously disclosed, having knowledge of facts relevant to the nature and extent of Plaintiff's injury. A. 56. This defendant objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not limited to any issue which is the subject of this case. This defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information within the work-product privilege and on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome in that it would have to review all of the files and all of the records of all of its attorneys all over the country to respond to this interrogatory. Q. 57. Did Defendant ever sell asbestos or asbestos-containing products to be used at General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois? If so, state: a) When Defendant first sold asbestos or asbestos-containing products to be used at General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois; b) When Defendant last sold asbestos or asbestos-containing products to be used at General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois. A. 57. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos- 41 containing products in 1958. '-Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ha; found no records indicating that it sold, distributed, or otherwise supplied Kaylo insulation * products containing asbestos to General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois. Further, this defendant does not now and has not in the past engaged in the mining, milling or selling asbestos. Q* 58. Did Defendant ever ship asbestos or asbestos-containing products for use at General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois? If so, state as to each shipment: a) The date of the shipment; b) The quantity shipped; c) Identify the contract under which the shipment was made; d) The name, position at that time, and current address, employer, and position of each person who had knowledge of such shipment. A. 58. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos- containing products in 1958. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant has found no records indicating that it sold, distributed, or otherwise supplied Kaylo insulation products containing asbestos to General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois. Further, this defendant does not now and 42 has not in the past engaged in the m: ing, milling or selling asbestos. Q. 59. Did defendant ever contract with General Cable Corporation, or any of its corporate affiliates or successors, for the sale of asbestos or asbestos-containing products? If so, state the following information as to each such contract: a) The date the contract was executed; b) The contract number or other method of identifying the specific contract; c) The type, quantity, and unit price of the asbestos or asbestos-containing products involved. A. 59. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 58 Q. 60. With what companies, if any, did Defendant contract with to obtain asbestos or asbestos-containing products for resale to General Cable Corporation, Monticello, Illinois? For each such company, state the following: 43 {a) The name of the company providing the asbestos or asbestos-ct Gaining products; b) The dates the contracts were executed c) The type or types of asbestos or asbestoscontaining products involved; d) The quantity of asbestos or asbestoscontaining products involved; e) The contract number or other method of identifying the specific contract; f) The name, position at that time, and current address, employer, and position of each person who had knowledge of such contract. A. 0. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, not applicable to this defendant. This defendant was not in the business of reselling other manufacturers' asbestos-containing products. Q. 61. Did any employee or agent of Defendant ever visit General Cable Corporation at Monticello, Illinois? If so, state as to each visit: a) The date; b) The name, position, and employing agency at that time and current address, position and employer of each person who made the visit; c) The name and current address of each other person present at the time of the visit; 44 d) Whether any documents were prepared which reflect the date of the visit, who was present, or the reason for the sit; e) If your answer to (d) *is affimative, identify the documents. A. 61. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as it relates to the period of time during which this defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Q. 62. List the following information regarding each instance known to Defendant where an individual has testified (at deposition or trial) that a product manufactured or sold by Defendant was present or used at General Cable Corporation (in lieu of providing the answers to the following, you may provide a transcript of the testimony and Plaintiff's lawyer will pay your charges for providing the same): a) name and address of witness; b) first named plaintiff, case number, and court in which case is pending; c) date of testimony; d) name and address or reporter; e) whether you have a transcript of the testimony. 45 X. 62. This defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privilege. This * defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information inquired about is a matter of public record, if exists, and therefore, plaintiff's counsel has equal access to same. 46 defends jiov believes that this defendant's commercially pro duced a astos-containing products were hydrous calcium silicates containing between 13% and approximately 20% asbestos. Chrysotile asbestos was the primary type apparently used. Amosite was incorporated to a lesser extent. (e) Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestoscontaining products in about 1948, and began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo-20" in or after mid-1955, and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. Q. 39. Has Defendant, at any time since it began selling asbestos or asbestos containing products, issued a warning concerning the consequences of exposure to asbestos, which warning was intended by Defendant to reach those persons who would breath or ingest asbestos or asbestos containing products during their distribution and/or use? If so, state as to each such warning: (a) the language of the warning; (b) date first issued or distributed; (c) date last issued or distributed; distribution used; (d) the method of communication or (e) the name, position at that time, and current address, position and employer of each person ordering or recommending the warning. A. 39. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its Kaylo asbestoscontaining products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this 28 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO ) )SS: COUNTY OF LUCAS ) H. G. BRUSS, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is an Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., a defendant herein; that as such he is authorized to make an Affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing DEFENDANT, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. EXHIBIT I OCT 2 6 on#- A NEW HEAT INSULATION WITH REMARKABLE COMBINATION OF ADVANTAGES.... A Kaylo Heat Insulating Block a new type of lightweight mineral: suiatioo that is tfficitnt enough to used at ordinary room temperatur and resistant enough to perform eff< tively up to 1200 F. Few new products of any kind ha been so thoroughly researched befc being placed on the market. Kav Heat Insulating Block is the achie' ment of many years' work by Owtr Illinois Glass Company enginee physicists and chemists. No other material, new or old. effectively combines the most des: able characteristics of the ideal he insulation. For instance . . . LOW DENSITY Kaylo Heat Insulating Blot weighs only 11 pounds per cubic foe This light weight (less than one pout to the board foot) simplifies handlin shipping and application. It great reduces weight--an important ad\a tage on ships, for an example. . Notice the clean, straight edg' on these insulated precipitator ho pers. Applicators find it easy to do th kind oi work with Kaylo Heat Insula ing Block because they are so easy cut and yet they have a - ithely htc flexural strength. The w-..s abo^e tr hoppers are also insulated with Kay Heat Insulating Block. OVV THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY The coefficient of conductivity, or K". of Kaylo Heat Insulating Block, s 'Lown on the chart on page four, u. it among the moat efficient in* ula..ons for medium high temperaurea. Ita inauiation value cornea prinipally from ita fine, interlaced cellular tructure. Theae cella are ao tiny and o numerous that they prea'ent a maerial surface of approximately 140 icres per cubic foot of insulation. Experience shows that the insulaion value of Kaylo insulation im proves when the material is put into .ervice. EFFECTIVE OVER WIDE TEMPERATURE RANGE Kaylo Heat Insulating Block perorms efficiently not only on tempera:ures in the low pressure steam and hoc water range but on temperatures in the superheated steam range as well. This is shown by the flatness of the conductivity curve. One-material cov erage with Kaylo insulation handles applications which often require two thicknesses of different materials. HIGH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH compressive strength is unuse high for a mineral product of such light weight. Kaylo Heat Insu lating Block withstands compression values equivalent to those of a man's walking on it or even to those of a heel s being ground into it. HIGH FLEXURAL STRENGTH Its flexural strength is higher than the normal requirement for heat insu lation of this type. This strength makes for easy handling and applica tion, and contributes to long service with low maintenance. NO ADDED BINDER Kaylo insulation is an inorganic compound, containing no added binder. Its performance characteris tics. therefore, are not affected by additives, which often reduce insulat ing value, modify effective tempera ture range or otherwise limit per formance. EASY TO APPLY WELL Kaylo Heat Insulating Blocks are clean-cut and trim. They are easy to fit into place to make a good-looking installation. Their "feei" is pieaaM and non-irritating. They can be cut, scored and sawed with ordinary wood working tools. Finishes that go over the block, whether cement, cloth or other types, can be applied smoothly and with a minimum of effort. No special tools are needed. LOW MOISTURE ABSORPTION Moisture absorption is no prob lem with Kaylo insulation. Even when subjected to ao atmosphere of 90% relative humidity and a temperature of 120* F., in standard tests, speci mens absorb less than 1 % moisture by volume. RETAINS EFFECTIVENESS AFTER LONG SERVICE Kaylo Heat Insulating Block re mains strong, free from excessive powdering, and shows little loss in weight or shrinkage after long appli cation to temperatures up to 1200 F. Even conventional tumbling tests, run after prolonged heating, produce relatively little crumbling or break down of the material. STANDARD SIZES Lengths (inches) 36 36 ____ 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Widths (inches) 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 Thicknesses (inches) 1 l'A 2 2 Vi 3 1 1 Vi 2 2 Vi 3 Other sizea are available on special order. ND A REMARKABLE VERSATILITY On large or small equipment, in side or out, Kaylo Heat Insulating Block performs efficiently and with a minimum of maintenance. Here it is be*-- -'pplied to the walls of a large P' ator. Workmen are laying block over 6" x 6" wire mesh welded to the stiffeners. The block are then covered with finishing cement and asphalt mastic weatherproofing. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block cov ers both flat and curved surfaces on the power house equipment pictured here. At the right are fresh air intakes; the center compartments house in duced draft fans; and at the left are conduits leading to a precipitator. Kaylo insulation means continuous fuel savings to this power plant. Hot water is always ready when needed in the office building where this hot water storage tank is installed, thanks to Kaylo Heat Insulating Block. This permanent insulation holds water temperature constant with a minimum of power consumption. Other applications for Kaylo Heat Insulat ing block are listed on the hack page. ow THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY The coefficient of conductivity, or K". of Kaylo Heat Insulating Block, s '`-own on the chart on page four, u. it among the most efficient inula,,ons for medium high temperaures. Its insulation value comes prinipally from its fine, interlaced cellular tructure. These cells are so tiny and o numerous that they present a raaerial surface of approximately 140 icres per cubic foot of insulation. Experience shows that the insulaion value of Kaylo insulation im>roves when the material is put into .ervice. EFFECTIVE OVER WIDE TEMPERATURE RANGE Kaylo Heat Insulating Block per forms efficiently not only on tempera:ures in the low pressure steam and hot water range but on temperatures in the superheated steam range as well. This is shown by the flatness of the conductivity curve. One-material coverage with Kavlo insulation handles applications which often require two thicknesses of different materials. HIGH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH compressive strength is unusl high for a mineral product of such light weight. Kavlo Heat Insu lating Block withstands compression values equivalent to those of a man's walking on ic or even to those of a heel's being ground into it. HIGH FLEXURAL STRENGTH Its Aexural strength is higher than the normal requirement for heat insu lation of this type. This strength makes for easy handling and applica tion, and contributes to long service with low maintenance. NO ADDED BINDER Kaylo insulation is an inorganic compound, containing no added binder. Its performance characteris tics, therefore, are not affected by additives, which often reduce insulat ing value, modify effective tempera ture range or otherwise limit per formance. EASY TO APPLY WELL Kaylo Heat Insulating Blocks are clean-cut and trim. They are easy to fit into place to make a good-looking installation. Their "#eei" is ptataeat and non-rrritaring. They can be cut, scored and sawed with ordinary wood working tools. Finishes that go over the block, whether cement, cloth or other types, can be applied smoothly and with a minimum of effort. No special tools are needed. LOW MOISTURE ABSORPTION Moisture absorption is no prob lem with Kaylo insulation. Even when subjected to an atmosphere of 90% relative humidity and a temperature of 120* F., in standard tests, speci mens absorb less than 1% moisture by volume. RETAINS EFFECTIVENESS AFTER LONG SERVICE Kaylo Heat Insulating Block re mains strong, free from excessive powdering, and shows little loss in weight or shrinkage after long appli cation to temperatures up to 1200 F. Even conventional tumbling tests, run after prolonged heating, produce relatively little crumbling or break down of the material. STANDARD SIZES Lengths (inches) 36 36 ____ 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Widths (inches) 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 Thicknesses (inches) l I'A 2 2V4 3 1 1 Vi 2 2 Vi 5----------- Other sizes ere available on special order. On large or small equipment, in side or out, Kaylo Heat Insulating Block performs efficiently and with a minimum of maintenance. Here it is be'-'- ipplied to the walls of a large P' jtor. Workmen are laying block over 6" x 6" wire mesh welded to the stiffeners. The block are then cotered with finishing cement and sphah mastic weatherproofing. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block cov ers both flat and curved surfaces on the power house equipment pictured here. At the right are fresh air intakes; the center compartments house in duced draft fans; and at the left are conduits leading to a precipitator. Kaylo insulation means continuous fuel savings to this power plant. Hot water is always ready when needed in the office building where this hot water storage tank is installed, thanks to Kaylo Heat Insulating Block. This permanent insulation holds water temperature constant with a minimum of power consumption. Ocher applications for Kaylo Heat Insulat* mg block are listed on the hack page. V K ! M C I PA * FEATURES OF KAYLO HEAT INSULATING BLOCK KKJ/AYir 0(HSQ=/AyffaC3(3 SCLQGCS Heat Loss, Surface Temperatures and Efficiencies ^atio msa* *su>hng nocx -tAr loss oom H>r suwaczs Su*`*a *V*HAOitfS 0* MSUUTION Ammmm S-B a- *0* # * Ttmoe(wr OiRfWCB. Ir WC* A* *f --Inside or outside, for iMrft uutS^ >.i^*i^v3ioas orjmall, from 0 rq^ttOOcji^' 7-dSt' * Kaylo-Hcat Insularing^BlodElto- S. afftfL; ji-nstuis-tery^sy- -^irr J-f*t?j rW - Breechings'.' c5^ V Hot Air'Ducts v :.. jAutoclaves '^ r Tanks V r:+ r > , Towers' ' _ Ovens ' ='. J:- furnaces~%K Dryers -'* -. It1 3 Evaporators ; ~ JV _ Turbines-'^ I Chilling Phs~ Hear Exchangers ^ Boilers . Cond^sers^- Predpitaxors 'tsf&r .fVf Locomodres'^S?^ .jl Tap SOURCES OfJTST DATA ^TT?* .*H;>The .asm shownson these psges^ are supported , by. tests run at-various ^ r../f-J&. laboratories, ^!! _well- known to the<' .1 insulation industry. They are further supported by. the performance of the ~ 'J; product in service. * ta ' . . -. .e> _ ~ i't ' *r * J jb - ;v . . ^ < - ' More detailed information on Kaylo Heat Insulating Block is avail able on request. American Structural Products Company, Toledo 1, Ohio. Subsidiary of Owens-Illinois Glass Company. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC? AT A GLANCE : :''* ^ '*After~Seanng"Ior 2 4~hi ' -f 'zyib ' at 1000* T.ii. *at 1200 F. ..."..'.i. &$. $ .j After boiling for 24 boars (while wet)--V>^^4 lb. I2S'S^2^fv After heating for 24 hours. ;L -.,- at 750 F. at i ooo F.......................:......................./............ >!...... .-.. 7.9 %' at 1200 F... A":........... ................... 9.8* After boiling for 24 hours.t';......... . .. -*r T.. 0.2 * -.-J,..- _Jr.v .tse -: ,=. . -- .- -T.-e^-" i.*`" ' Tv) ' ._ ,-^Y : (Conventional Tumbling Test--Loss in weight after 10 minutes) ~ iiZZ1: . * . ..vaBu .;- .^u"*-*^ .' - Before heating... ... .. . p.v * .......'... .72.2 Hi. After heating for 24 houraJI)KRj^? ' it 750r.V-%,^s.>i^K^'^!*3^'*^r?.-v . 1 at:1000 F.r??:?f "~/:'aT'l200 * ^V>vV' ' SXa M * J*/ V. . fr. Linear Shrinkage after heating for 24 hrs.. ^ at 750 F.r.:. . ....:^^*...^v.."ffi.riJ___ .?.':;....;; W% at 1000 F..>. V. . .T. .Trr. r.'.........":.',0.9 * at 1200 F................. .... .*:. "......... . .'.V............................. 1.5 % Elongation after saturation (max.)................. ............... ........ .. 0.4% F'Y^lCD X.u32IFvr*r1''' (volumo) After 6 hours exposure in atmosphere of 120 F. and 90% Relative Humidity............................................... 0.9% : '! Iiaul >|r I At 300 F. mean temperature......................................................... 0.474 A new heo^ insi WITH A REMARKABLE COMBINATION OF KAY10 HEAT INSULATING BLOCK is a new type of lightweight mineral insulation that is efficient enough to be used at ordinary room temperatures and resistant enough to perform effectively up to 1200s F. Few new products of any kind have been so thoroughly researched before being placed on the market. Kay lo Heat Insulating Block is the achievement of many years' work by Owens-Illinois Glass Company engi neers. physicists and chemists. It combines the most desirable characteristics of the ideal heat insulation. LOW DENSITY. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block weighs only 11 pounds per cubic foot. This light weight (less than one pound to the board foot) simplifies handling, shipping and application. LOW THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY. The coefficient of conductivity, or k, of Kaylo Heat Insulating Block places it among the most efficient insulations for medium high temperatures. Its insulation value comes principally from its fine, cellular structure. These cells are so tiny and so numerous that they present a material surface of approximately 140 acres per cubic foot of iosulation. Experience shows that the efficiency of Kaylo insula tion improves after exposure to service temperatures. EFFECTIVE OVER WIDE TEMPERATURE RANGE. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block performs efficiently not only on temperatures in the low pressure steam and hot water range but on temperatures in the super heated steam range as well. One-material coverage with Kaylo insulation haodles applications which often require two thicknesses of different materials. HIGH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. Its compressive strength is unusually high for a mineral product of such light weight. HIGH FLEXURAL STRENGTH. Its flexural strength is higher than the normal requirements for heat insula tion of this type. This strength makes for easy hand ling and application, and contributes to long service with low maintenance. NO ADDED BINDER. Kaylo insulation is an inorganic compound, containing no added binder. Its per formance characteristics, therefore, are not affected by additives, which often reduce insulating value, modify effective temperature range or otherwise limit per formance. EASY TO APPLY. Kaylo Heat Insulating Blocks are clean-cut and trim. They are easy to fit into place to Notice the dean, straight edges on these insulated pre cipitator hoppers. Applicators find it easy to work with Kaylo Heat Insulating Block because they are so easy to cut and yet have a high flexural strength. On large er small equipment, inside or out, Keylo Heat Insulating Block performs efficiently and with a minimum of maintenance. Here it is being applied to the walls of a large precipitator. s 9 ation WANTAGES... take a good-looking installation. Then l" so* leasam and noei-irmating. They can be cut, scored nd sawed with ordinary woodworking tools. Finishes nar go over the block, whether cement, cloth or other vpes. can be applied smoothly and with a minimum >1 effort. No special tools are needed. OW MOISTURE ABSORPTION. Kaylo Heat Insular- ng Block absorbs little moisture from surrounding tumid air. EFFECTIVE AFTER LONG SERVICE. Kaylo Heat Insulat- ng Block remains strong, free from excessive powderng, and shows little loss in weight or shrinkage after long application to temperatures up to 1200* F. Even conventional tumbling tests, run after prolonged heating, produce relatively little crumbling or break down of the material. TYPICAL APPLICATIONSs Ir -r outside, for large installations or small, up to 12U0' F.. use Kaylo Heat Insulating Block to insulate: Breechings Hot Air Ducts Tanks Towers Dryers Evaporators Heat Exchangers Condensers Lehrs Autoclaves Ovens Furnaces Turbines Chilling Pits Boilers Precipitators Locomotives <aylo Heal Insulating Block covers both Rat and curved urfaccs on the power house equipment pictured here. By nimmmng heat loss, it saves fuel end keeps temperatures within the room at comfortable levels. N PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS pr cv. ...................................................................... ...........................50 lb. COMM`vT.t,TNOtH tei .% > \ 50 lb. * m* t.er. >*" -j Aflar hat> 2 * h0"^ ............ 144 lb- pf . ,m ib.at 750* F.............................................. ............... pr q. *- at 1000* F............................... ................. ,117 1b. pf 4 01 '22?* Va hours i-W Ahar ho*e to' ` ....... . 71 lb. pr tq. LOSS IN WIIONT After h.ots let 21 .......................... at 7 SO* ................................................................................ at 1000* *.......................................... ........................ .............. .5.3% .7.9% .9.1% ,.0.2% rssscs--- s.tor. ht-l - rj.' Ah.r h.ot* *er 2* I*"" at 750* ............................................ at 1000* F........................................ at 1 200* ......................................... .......................... ............................. ............................. .2.2% --"t......... at 730* ........................................................................... YYYYY.at ....F.................................. ................................ ......................... ,0.S% .0.9% ..1.5% 0.04% . .0.9% ....... ...................... ............................. At 300' * ................. $ TAI ^w .a-- . a >H> . -iiF, >.? THICKNESS (.nches) irn3Esro: lEZTff iczro: ::33Zo: r ___c___ ___ r__ . ~ . "'rzr-r"' ~--: :r""~ :r.zro" HEAT INSULATING BLOCK Heat Less, Surface Temperatures, and Efficier ' s 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10001100 1200 Temperature Difference, Bare Surface lo Air. *F. SOURCES OF TEST DATA: The data shown on these pages are supported by tests run at var ious laboratories, all well known to the insu lation industry. They are further supported by the performance of the product in service. Mere detailed information on Kaylo Heat Insulating Block is available on request. American Structural Products Company, A . -w. . . sp^jTjCoyta. Structural Insulating Block:--is a near-white, rigid mineral insulating I material weighing approximately 20 pounds per cubic foot. It is composed rr- principally of calcium.silicate. Except for density and for those characteris- ' tics that are changed by density it is similar to Kaylo Heat Insulating Block, _ a lightweight insulation used to Insulate against heat loss from hot surfaces. Kaylo Structural Insulating Block (20-lb. density) is designed to develop maximum strength and fire resistance without sacrificing its advantages of light weight and low thermal conductivity. In fact the practical combination of these four properties--strength, weight, insulating value and fire resist ance--makes it almost unique as a building material. It weighs nominally 20 pounds to the cubic foot (actually on an oven drv basis from 19.5 to 22 lb.), has a compressive strength of approximately 5C"> lb. per sq. in., a "k" of 0.66 at 100 mean and outstanding resistance to c-.e travel of heat and flame at building fire temperatures. ft V STRUCTU For use in fabrications that are to be Underwriters' Labor atones inspected, Kaylo Structural Insulating Block 1 furnished bearing the Underwriters' label for fire hazard classification for building material. Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is not a finished build* ing material in itself and is not made for exposure to the weather. Its principal uses are as a structural roof tile, or roof deck unit, in which a steel reinforcing mat is inserted at the time of forming, and as a core material. In this latter use it serves as the core of laminated structures where the faces or laminates are applied with adhesives, and also as the core of structural shells or envelopes where the Kaylo core material is simply inserted in the open spaces and held by its own contact or by such conven tional methods as clips or other attachments. In any of these applications it adds rigidity to the structure nd vastly increases insulation value and fire resistance. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES Light Weight--Nominal 20-lb. density Kaylo Block is about a third lighter than yellow pine. On an oven-dry basis it weighs from 19.5 to 22 pounds per cubic foot High Strength--Its compressive strength is approximately 500 lb. per sq. in. with a deformation of 5 per cent Flexural strength is approximately 175 lb. per sq. in. Fireproof-- Kaylo 20-lb. density Structural Insulating Block has been tested at the Underwriters' Laboratories in Chicago and given the following rating, based on com parison with untreated Red Oak as 100. Flame spread........................0.0 Fuel contributed.................. negligible Smoke produced...................0.0 too ns ise Moon Tompofotvro, *F. Good Insulation Valuo--At low mean temperatures Kaylc Structural Insulating Block is one of the most efficient structural mineral insulations. At high mean temperature; it still compares favorably with heat insulating material; of its own weight. High Light Reflectivity--Where left exposed and untreatec (as with the underside of a roof deck) Kaylo Structura Insulating Block has high light reflectivity. Its light re flection factor is from 70 to 80 per cent. Non-Abrasive Surface--Its surface is non-abrasive. It has a somewhat "soapy" feel that makes it pleasant to handle At the same time it has a firm surface that assures gooc contact with surfaces applied over it. No Added Binder--It contains no added binder, but in stead constitutes its own binder. Hence its characteristic are not modified as to temperature limit, solubility, insu lation value, fire resistance or otherwise by "bind limitations." 7 L INSULATING BLOCK (20-LB. DENSITY) ood Workability--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is `sponsive to wood working tools. It can be sawed with a and saw or power saw, can be routed, tongue-androoved, sanded, and, in fact, run through most woodorking equipment. igh Modulus of Elasticity--The modulus of elasticity of 0-lb. density block is approximately 160,000 lb. per sq. in. ow Specific Hoot--The specific heat of Kaylo Structural nsulating Block is approximately 0.22. lollular Structure--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is bout 80 per cent inter-communicating air cells. The cells re extremely small, less than a micron in diameter. ow Moisture Absorption--Kaylo Structural Block is hyToscopic. It will absorb moisture from humid air and will each equilibrium at lower moisture contents when exposed 0 lower humidities. However, because of its extremely mall pore size and other characteristics, its behavior with espect to moisture differs from that of most porous macri Tt has unusual capacity to distribute moisture viti. .. .s mass, and to give it off to surrounding air of ower moisture content. its moisture absorption when surrounded by humid air s low. Test specimens dried for 24 hours at 215* F., cooled ind then exposed on all surfaces to an atmosphere of 90 ler cent relative humidity and a temperature of 120* F. ir six hours, absorbed less than one per cent of moisture y volume. onsistent with the common practice for good construeon involving porous insulating materials of high internal irface area, Kaylo Structural Insulating Block should 1 sealed against moisture on the warm side when it is objected to extremely low temperatures. High Wot Strength--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block, like most other insulating materials, is not intended to serve immersed in water or exposed to extremely damp or humid conditions, yet its flexural strength when wet (im mersed 10 hours; is reduced only about 15 per cent. Dimensionally Stable--The dimensions of Kaylo Struct ural Insulating Block change little with changes in moist ure content. Experience has shown from the manufacture of thousands of units of laminated structures that they have unusual dimensional stability and unusual freedom from warping. Available with and without Reinforcing--In the form of roof tile Kaylo Structural Insulation is available with a steel reinforcing mat. In the form of core material for var ious types of structure it is available without reinforcing. Accepts Noils and Screws--Both nails and screws can be used with Kaylo Structural Block. Tables showing holding power of both are available on request. Nails should be of the cement-coated type without barbs that abrade the sides of the opening they make as they are driven into the block. Galvanized or non-ferrous nails may be used where greater resistance to corrosion is required. Screws may be inserted either with or without drilling a pilot hole. Sizes--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is made in a standard size of 18 x 36 inches. Since most uses involve manufacturing operations, thick nesses that are practical can best be worked out with the manufacturer of Kaylo Insulating Products after approxi mate quantities needed are known. These will usually be between one and two inches thick. Certain thicknesses are suggested by certain building re quirements. A thickness of from 1M to 2 inches of Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is required to withstand a typical building fire for one hour--usually somewhat more for a partition than for a door because of the greater per formance required of a partition. 20-lb. and 11-Lb. Density Mock Can Be Usad in Combination. Where two thicknesses of insulation are used to build up an insulating structure it is ^ssible to use the two den sities in combination to deveiop the best insulation value strength and fire resistance. AMERICAN STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS COMPANY Toledo 1, Ohio j LAMINATION :----------------------------------- ;-- amination over a Kayla Insulating Cart--Almost any face material may be bonded to Kaylo Structural Insulating Block surfaces. Bonding agents can be selected to meet the requirements of the particular facing--also to satisfy the service requirements of the finished product--and still offer some choice in curing procedures. Some adhesives which may be used with various types of face materials are listed tielow. (This list is not intended to be complete. Its only purpose is to identify a partial list of adhesives. These have been found to provide a tensile strength of 35 lb,per sq. in. and a minimum shear strength of 100 lb. per sq. m. when cured in the manner indicated.) f[B5g7Q jADHESIVES FOR JOINING STRUCTURAL INSULATING BLOCK TO: Wood Venoar Aluminum Slainlas* Steal ADHESIVES FOR JOINING LIKE MATERIALS: Insulating Black la Insulating Black Aluminum la Aluminum Stainless Steal a Stainless Steel Dvrito Ne. 3034A Q 3034AWH307 303SAW* ^tnontix G1131 Q 711 Catab*<W 730 Vinyl*--l MA 31-11 O o o A<wb*H* MU r.k 7024 o Eedwi o Synco X #341 o -r 1301W (DW) Ovrile Ne. 3034A Q P--rw 714 WlldwMd lmoJwt i*tr4ek 4143 Vvkolock o o 'o 90 OO Dvpwit 4033 900 900 O. E. 3 M3 G E. 7031 AAA 3MI 9 O O AmbHtt nu o iii{k exc m o ledwi o Ovrite Ne. 3034 A Ne. A. NH347 9N100 3 MK 900 S34 WeMweed O oInselwte Ne 1 Interieke 90 4143 Vwkeleck 90 Depenf 4433 Dwpent 909 900 4*44 G. E. 3143 9 G. 1 7031 9 Vinyliee< MA 31-11 9 Amkerlite 7114 O leittk 7034 O 5*dWIBI Silicct* O Dvrite 3034A *enece4te 01131 WeWweed l<iBJvt 1 G. E. 3143 o o o o 9 Hatken *11 90 SoUctfw 5003 VinylMel MA 3S-1S *114 9 9 0 SesHk 7034 Settik EXE 131 O 0 MivM Siltcaff tedva O 0 Sync* X>Udl ' O + 130LW (DW) Veteeleck QQ Oepil 4433 Owpeet 4444 090 900 G. E. 7031 O Se.Hk 7034 Q ltik EXE 131 O tedwi Q Ovpen' 4453 OOO G. E. 7031 Q SetHk 7034 0 SetHk EXE IU O Rtduft ^5 Clamped at ream temperature lor 24 hour*. 1Symbols for method of term For Maximum Strength 0 Clamped in oven at 120s F. lor 1 hour. 0 Placed in press at 10 p.s.i. at 300* F. far 10-30 minute*, f 0 Placed in press at 100 p.s.i. at 300* F. lor 10-30 minutes. [ 0 Clamped in even at 2S0* F. for 10-30 minutes. High-frequency curing has been tried successfully on sn experimental basis with wood, aluminum and stainless steel bonded to a Kaylo r ZMSC50(SAK1 listing core. Many of the manufacturers making the above listed esives can provide adhesives suitable lor high-frequency curing. StffSQflGUQDlSM j TOliOO 1. OHIO Subsidiary et OWENS-ILLINOIS CLASS COMPANY RM4M4I1) CapW|N INI. Amhcm ttnMtwal Rrwdwcta Campasr P*ifd m USA. Kayio Structural Insulating Black--is a near-white, rigid mineral insulating material weighing approximately 20 pounds per cubic foot. It is composed principally of calcium silicate. Except for density and for those characteris tics that are changed by density it is similar to Kayio Heat Insulating Block, a lightweight insulation used to insulate against heat loss from hot surfaces. Kayio Structural Insulating Block (20-lb. density) is designed to develop maximum strength and fire resistance without sacrificing its advantages of light weight and low thermal conductivity. In fact the practical combination of these four properties--strength, weight, insulating value and fire resist ance--makes it almost unique as a building material. It weighs nominally 20 pounds to the cubic foot ; actually on an oven orbasis from 19.5 to 22 lb.), has a compressive strength of approximates 5"" lb. per sq. in., a "k" of 0.66 at 100 mean and outstanding re?istnnc* to travel of heat and flame at building fire temperatures. 20-LB. IDENSITY 1 USES I tirt>^ , - For use in fabrications that are to be Underwriters' Labor atories inspected, Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is furnished bearing the Underwriters' label for fire hazard classification for building material. Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is not a finished build ing material in itself and is not made for exposure to the weather. Its principal uses are as a structural roof tile, or roof deck unit, in which a steel reinforcing mat is inserted at the time of forming, and as a core material. In this latter use it serves as the core of laminated structures where the faces or laminates are applied with adhesives, and also as the core of structural shells or envelopes where the Kaylo core material is simply inserted in the open spaces and held by its own contact or by such conven tional methods as clips or other attachments. 1 In any of these applications it adds rigidity to the structure and vastly increases insulation value and fire resistance. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES Light Weight--Nominal 20-Ib. density Kaylo Block is about a third lighter than yellow pine. On an oven-dr}' basis it weighs from 19.5 to 22 pounds per cubic foot. High Strength--Its compressive strength is approximately 500 lb. per sq. in. with a deformation of 5 per cent. Flexural strength is approximately 175 lb. per sq. in. Fireproof--Kaylo 20-lb. density Structural Insulating Block has been tested at the Underwriters' Laboratories in Chicago and given the following rating, based on com parison with untreated Red Oak as 100. Flame spread....................... 0.0 Fuel contributed..................negligible Smoke produced............. .. 0.0 w r ioo is* tse i/i 30O Mean Temperature, 'F. c Good Insulation Valuo--At low mean temperatures Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is one of the most efficient structural mineral insulations. At high mean temperatures it still compares favorably with heat insulating materials of its own weight. High Light Reflectivity--Where left exposed and untreated i as with the underside of a roof deck) Kaylo Structural Insulating Block has high light reflectivity. Its light re flection factor is from 70 to 80 per cent. Non-Abrasive Surface--Its surface is non-abrasive. It has a somewhat "soapy" feel that makes it pleasant to handle. At the same time it has a firm surface that assures good contact with surfaces applied over it. No Addod Binder--It contains no added binder, but in stead constitutes its own binder. Hence its characteristics are not modified as to temperature limit, solubility, insu lation value, fire resistance or otherwise by "binder limitations." STRUCTURAL INSULATING BLOCK Good Workability--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is responsive to wood working tools. It can be sawed with a hand saw or power saw, can be routed, tongue-andgrooved, sanded, and, in fact, run through most wood working equipment. High Modulus of Elasticity--The modulus of elasticity of 20-lb. density block is approximately 160,000 lb. per sq. in. low Specific Hoot--The specific heat of Kaylo Struc tural Insulating Block is approximately 0.22. Cellular Structure--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is about 80 per cent inter-communicating air cells. The cells are extremely small, less than a micron in diameter. Low Moisture Absorption--Kaylo Structural Block is hygroscopic. It will absorb moisture from humid air and will reach equilibrium at lower moisture contents when exposed to lower humidities. However, because of its extremely small pore size and other characteristics, its behavior with respect to moisture differs from that of l nost porous materials. It has unusual capacity to disv*" tribute moisture within its mass, and to give it off to surrounding air of lower moisture content. Its moisture absorption when surrounded by humid air is low. Test specimens dried for 24 hours at 215 F., cooled and then exposed on all surfaces to an atmos phere of 90 per cent relative humidity and a tempera ture of 120 F. for six hours, absorbed less than one per cent of moisture by volume. Consistent with the common practice for good construc tion involving porous insulating materials of high internal surface area. Kaylo Structural Insulating Block should be sealed against moisture on the warm side when it is subjected to extremely low temperatures. High Wot Strength--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block, like most other insulating materials, is not intended to serve immersed in water or exposed to extremely damp or humid conditions, yet its fiexural strength when wet (immersed 10 hours) is reduced only about 15 per cent. Oimontionaljy Stablo--The dimensions of Kavlo Struct ural Insulating Block change little with changes in moist ure content. Experience has shown from the manufacture of thousands of units of laminated structures that they have unusual dimensional stability and unusual freedom from warping. Available with and without Reinforcing--In the form of roof tile Kaylo Structural Insulation is available with a steel reinforcing mat. In the form of core material for var ious types of structure it is available without reinforcing. Accepts Nails and Screws--Both nails and screws can be used with Kaylo Structural Block. Tables showing holding power of both are available on request. Nails should be of the cement-coated type without barbs that abrade the sides of the opening they make as they are driven into the block. Galvanized or non-ferrous nails may be used where greater resistance to corrosion is required. Screws may be inserted either with or without drilling a pilot hole. Sixes--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is made in a standard size of 18 x 36 inches. Since most uses involve manufacturing operations, thick nesses that are practical can best be worked out with the manufacturer of Kaylo Insulating Products after approxi mate quantities needed are known. These will usually be between one and two inches thick. Certain thicknesses are suggested by certain building re quirements. A thickness offrom 1J4 to 2 inches of Kavlo Structural Insulating Block is required to withstand a typical building fire for one hour--usually somewhat more for a partition than for a door because of the greater per formance required of a partition. 20-lb. and 11-lb. Density Block Can Be Used in Combination. Where two thicknesses of insulation are used to build up an insulating structure it is possible to use the two den sities in combination to develop the best insulation value strength and fire resistance. Kaylo Division OWENS-ILLINOIS n ec f audauv LAMINATION .eminetion over a Kaylo Insulating Cora--Almost any face material may be bonded to Kaylo Structural Insul ating Block surfaces. Bonding agents can be selected to meet the requirements of the particular facing--also to satisfy the service requirements of the finished product --and still offer some choice in curing procedures. Some adhesives and primers which may be used with various types of face materials are listed below. (This list is not intended to be complete. Its only purpose is to ..identify a partial list of adhesives. An adhesive noj^ Uted does not imply that it is not suitable. These havO wen found to provide a tensile strength of 35 lb. per square inch and a minimum shear strength of 100 lb. per square inch when cured according to the manufac' turn's recommendation. They are not listed in the order of their adhesive strength.) ADHESIVES AND PRIMERS FOR JOINING STRUCTURAL INSULATING SLOCK TO: Weed Veneer Steel, Stainless Steel Kaylo I or Paper or Plastics Gelvaneal, or Aluminum Insulating Block or Cement-Asbestos Board t *'. I- ` Dvrit* No. 3026A Poftoeol'ta G1131 O o Pcoro 71C Cataboftd 720 ViayUtol MA 28*IS AmOarfita 78 14 Smtik 7026 o o o 0 o ItOwA 0 $r-xo 3.(341 + 1301W IOW| o laso'taooAd t>12 o Armstrong 3*1162 o Tgo o PvrHo No. 3026A or No. A NH267 W NI00 G fKoro 711 O 3MCC (26 GOO Pswocolito Gil31 o IraaM* No. 1 o Intofiolio 4162 GO Vwlcalock OQ Owfonl 4633 OuPofff 4646 GOO GOO loionabonC It* 13 0 SX 3142 OX 7031 G G Sotlik 7026 loiMk IXf 121 Soma 1007 Vkiybooi AAA 2S-1I AioboriHo 78-14 Nw O 0 O G O O Vmfrofig J-1162 O Ovrtt* 3024A rcost* 01131 Ammon A 1142 know* 1 OX 3143 SolocWoo S003 Vinybool AAA 3S-1S AmbodKo MM 4 Soma 7024 Soma Rt 13B loSlw SiStato R*4v* Syoco X-S34S+1301W |OW) (MorMbond S-12 T*e* o o Q Clamped at room temperature tor 24 hours. Q Clamped in oven at 120s F. for 1 hour. Symbols for method of cure: 0 Placed in press at 10 p.s.i. at 300 F. for 10-30 minutes. For Maximum Strength 01 0 Placed in press at 100 p.s.i. at 300s F. for 10-30 minutes. Clamped in oven at 25<f F. for 10-30 minutes. High-froquency curing hss betn triad successfully on tn experimental v>*ais with wood, aluminum end stainless steel bonded to t Kaylo listing core. Many of the manufacturers making the above listed -ohesives can provide adhesives suitable (or high-frequency curing. Kaylo Division OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY Talada 1, Ohio K2 505 3m 194$. Oi i-JKiiois CMm C***v Primed U S A The Right Material... Expert Application First, Kaylo Heat Insulation is proved a better material hydrous calcium silicate. Its light weight, strength, waterinsolubility, low conductivity and wide temperature range give you extra advantages at no extra cost. Second. Kaylo distributors have the technical knowledge and experience to provide you with a complete insulating service. Their trained applicators are skilled craftsmen who do neat and efficient installation. To lx; sure of getting the most out of your insulating dollars for your next job, call the nearest Kaylo distributor. Chances are you can find him listed in the yellow pages of your phone l>ook. If not contact us and we'll give you his name. KAYLO WIITt FO* FRtt 1001--"Kov'o H.ar Ini.lasos " Address. Oept. N.370. Owtni'illmoift Gian Com* pony, Kaylo Oiviwon, Toledo Ohio. .. first in calcium silicate ...pioneered by OWENS ILLINOIS Glass Company MAIN OFFICI: TOLIOO I, OHIO-KATIO JAIIJ OFFICIS: ATIANTA CHICAGO HOUSTON NIW TOW FHIIADIIFHIA PITTMUtCM St IOUIS Owens Illinois Glass Company -- Kaylo Division Advertisement No. K 153. appearing n the following publications: CUemual Engineering Jan.. 1953 Oil fts Gas Journal - Jan l 2. 1953 Plant Engineering Jan . 1953 Power--Jan.. 1952 Petro*eum Refiner- Feb . 1953 Chemical Processing - Feb.. 1953 Combustion Feb 1953 ............ V P-c-r P-h  VI IIUVII i win / -v VI -- ' Nesting Kaylo Heat Insulation Requires Fewer Pieces Per lob The complete range of Kaylo Insulation includes pipe covering in Simplified Dimensional Standards for diameters from in. to 72 in., curved block from 72 in. to 60 ft. and flat block for surfaces of less curvature whose radii approach infinity. With its wide selection of interchangeable sizes and shapes. Kaylo Insu lation reduces the number of items needed per job and permits substantial savings in warehousing maintenance stock. WRIT! rot Fin loot-- K.rtoH..t hMt.no. KAYLO ... Addreest Dtp*- N-371, OwenvMifion Clou Company, Kaylo Division, Toledo 1. Ohio. first in calcium silicate ...pioneered by OWENS (^ILLINOIS Glass Company MAIN OMICS: TOIIDO I. OHIO-KATIO IAU1 OMICIS: ATLANTA CHICACiO HOUSTON NSW TOM PHILAOILPHIA P'TTSSUIOM ST LOUIS Owens-Illinois Glass Company Advertisement Mo. K I5< ippunag ta the foUowmf publication*: Pleat Bamcenfi--March. 1953 Oil A Goa journal--March 23. 1953 Chemical Cnincertnt- March. 1953 Chemical Procemint Apnl. 1953 Petroleum Refiner May. 1953 SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE A PMnarahip Indudng PtoNnlengl Corporation! 7200 Sears Tower, Chicago, IKnois 60606-6473 Telephone (312) 876-1000 Facsimile (312)256-5600 Sandra C. Antczak (312)258-4501 Chicago Washington New York Peoria Merrillville October 24, 1994 Mr. Dean Engelbrecht James Walker, Ltd. 207 W. Jefferson Street Bloomington, Illinois 61702-3455 Re: Neatherv. et al. v. Owens-Illinois. Inc., et al. Dear Mr. Engelbrecht: Enclosed please find Defendant, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Defendant, OwensIllinois, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Discovery from Defendant, Owens-Illinois, Inc. By copy of this letter, I am serving said pleadings upon counsel of record on the attached service list. Sincerely, SCA/cdp Enclosures cc: All Counsel of Record Jay Tambe Sandra C. Antczak ^ Litigation Administrator ' The Right Material... Expert Application First. Kaylo Heat Insulation is proved a better material Iwdrous calcium silicate. Its light weight, strength, waterinsolubility. low conductivity and wide temperature range give you extra advantages at no extra cost. Second, Kaylo distributors have the technical knowledge and experience to provide you with a complete insulating service. Their trained applicators are skilled craftsmen who do neat and efficient installation. To lie mi re of getting the most out of your insulating dollars for your next job, call the nearest Kaylo distributor. Chances are you can find him listed in the yellow pages of your phone liook. If not contact us and we'll give you his name. KAYLO WtITf tOt till 1001--"Koylo H.ot Imuiation " Address.- Oapt. N.370. Ownt*Mlinoi Glass Com* pony, Koyio Division, Toledo I, Ohio. . first in calcium silicate ...pioneered by OWENS (l)-1LLINOIS Glass Company MAIN OFFICI: TOUDO 1, OMIO-KATIO SAUS OFFICII: ATIANTA CMICAOO HOUSTON NIW TOIK * PHIIAOIIFHIA FITTJIUIOH ST-lOUIS Owens Illinois Class Company -- Kaylo Division Advertisement No- K liJ, appearing in the following publications; Chemical engineering Jan.. 1953 Oil fe Gas Journal -Jan 12.1953 Plant Engineering Jan . 19SJ Power--Jan . 1952 Petroleum Reftner-Feb 19S3 Chemical Processing Feb.. 1952 Combustion - Feh . 19S3 ' * P- c-r F-h 1Q51  Wl IIUUII II VIII / ll%lll Nesting Kaylo Heat Insulation Requires Fewer Pieces Per Job The complete range of Kaylo Insulation includes pipe covering in Simplified Dimensional Standards for diameters from li in. to 72 in., curved block from 72 in. to 60 ft. and flat block for surfaces of less curvature whose radii approach infinity. With its wide selection of interchangeable sizes and shapes. Kaylo Insu lation reduces the number of items needed per job and permits substantial savings in warehousing maintenance stock. KAYLO! WRITI FOt nil 1001 Hoot Inwtafton. Addrottt Dipt. N-J7I, Owfm*Mnoii Clou Compony, Koyto Diwiiw, Tolado I, OMo. . first in calcium silicate ...pioneered by OWENS ILLINOIS Glass Company MAIN OMICI: TOIIOO I, OMIO-KAYIO IALII OMICII: ATLANTA CHICAGO HOUSTON NSW TOAX PHIIAOILFHIA P'TTStUtOH ST LOUIS Owens-Illinois Glass Company Advcrtiwtiwot No. K-Ut ippunm to Um foUowt&| ptWicalioni; Ptaat Eocmeennf---March. 1953 Osl A Cm Journal--March 23. 1953 Chemical Engtneenna-March. 1953 Chemical Proceeeinff Apnl. 1953 Petroleum Refiner May. 1953 SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE A Pwtntramp Indudng Pretosalontl Corporation* 7200 Sears Tower, Chicago. IKnois 60606-6473 Telephone (312) 076-1000 Facsimile (312) 258-5600 Sandra C Antczak (312) 258-4501 Chicago Washington New York Peoria Merrillville October 24, 1994 Hr. Dean Engelbrecht Janes Walker, Ltd. 207 W. Jefferson Street Bloomington, Illinois 61702-3455 Re: Neatherv. et al. v. Owens-Illinois. Inc., et al. Dear Mr. Engelbrecht: Enclosed please find Defendant, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Defendant, OwensIllinois, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Discovery from Defendant, Owens-Illinois, Inc. By copy of this letter, I am serving said pleadings upon counsel of record on the attached service list. Sincerely, SCA/cdp Enclosures cc: All Counsel of Record Jay Tambe Sandra C. Antczak Litigation Administrator ; OCT * * **