Document rp55L8vwrEwJvR1kde6zRdb80

30 KENNEDY PLAZA PROVIDENCE, R. I. 02903 (401) 521- 400 TELECOPIER: (401) 521-0910 i\b^ Ropes & Gray ONE INTERNATIONAL PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110-2624 (617) 951*7000 TELECOPIER: (617) 951-7050 Mr. Cray's Direct Dial Number: (617) 961-7537 March 9, 1990 UrP-^s 1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N, W. WASHINGTON, D, C. 20004 (202) 626-3900 TELECOPIER: (202) 626-3961 Lawrence A. Looby, Esq. The Dow Chemical Company Legal Department 2030 Willard H. Dow Center Midland, MI 48674 Judith Elledge, Esq. Conoco Inc. P.0. Box 4783 Houston, TX 77210 John R. Downey, Esq. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Company, Inc. Law Department 39 Old Ridgebury Road Danbury, CT 06817-0001 j Re: Alice Warren, Administratrix v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al. Dear Larry, Judy and John: I enclose a copy of an Amended Complaint in the abovereferenced action that the plaintiff filed during the Autumn of 1989 but did not mail to us until March 5, 1990. Plaintiffs' counsel Keith Minoff assured me that the enclosed Amended Complaint is identical to the original Complaint in all respects except for the substitution of Whittaker Development Company for Great American Chemical Corporation as a named defendant. I will be reviewing the Amended Complaint to be sure that that is in fact the case. Mr. Minoff has agreed that, pursuant to the final sentence of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), we have until Monday, March 19, 1990 to respond to the Amended Complaint. I enclose a copy of a letter to Mr. Minoff memorializing our conversation to this effect. If the Amended Complaint indeed proves to be identical to the original Complaint, then I will serve Answers that are identical to our original Answers on March 19, 1990. I will presume that PRIVILEGED AND "CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" UCC 082306 Ropes & Gray Lawrence A. Looby, Esq. March 9, 1990 this arrangement is acceptable to each of you unless I hear from you in the interim. The issue of adding Monsanto as a third party defendant, originally raised by Larry with me last summer but now being vigorously pursued by Mark Granger for Goodrich, is somewhat complicated, particularly in light of several recent Massachusetts decisions. I enclose a copy of a brief memorandum that I prepared summarizing the effect of the recent decisions upon our possible impleader argument and suggesting several additional topics for possible inclusion in any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena to Monsanto. I will apprise you promptly of any further developments in this matter. POC/ves: poclal.dc Enclosures PRIVILEGED AND "CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" UCC 082307