Document v1bEdLazGK6Q88DQaROw43YRY

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT CEL-987 NO. 99-6090-H JUAN T. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. OWENS CORNING (A/K/A OWENS CORNING CORPORATION), ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 28TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JUAN RAMON GONZALEZ'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez, by and through his attorney, Stephanie Finch, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules"), Defendant Celanese Ltd. (referenced herein as "Defendant" or "Celanese") submits these Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions Propounded on Premises Defendant Celanese Ltd. as follows: GENERAL RESPONSES. OBJECTIONS AND ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE Defendant makes the following general objections to each and every request and interrogatory directed to it: 1. Celanese objects to Plaintiffs Instruction No. 1. Defendant may produce non-privileged responsive documents in the manner in which they are kept in the ordinary course of business. 2. Defendant objects to the interrogatories and requests to the extent that they seek to compel the disclosure of information specifically exempted from discovery by the privileges afforded in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") and Article V. of the 70500.1 Texas Rules of Evidence, including the attomey/client privilege, the joint defense privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or the investigative privilege. Any withholding of documents or information on the basis of privilege will be specifically noted as part of Defendant's objections and responses after the discovery request calling for such privileged information and/or documents, if any. 3. Defendant objects to paragraph one of the DEFINITIONS regarding "Defendant," "You," "Your," and "Your Company" and paragraph three regarding "persons" because they are oveiiy broad and unduly burdensome and pertain to corporations other than those that are parties to this suit. Defendant also objects to paragraphs one and three because they include Defendant's attorneys; information and things protected by the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine is not discoverable. 4. Defendant objects to paragraph two of the DEFINITIONS because the definition of the word "document" and the instructions regarding "possession, custody or control" are overly broad, seeks information specifically exempted from discovery by the privileges afforded in the Rules and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, including the attorney work product doctrine, and the attorney client privilege because it exceeds the scope of Rule 192.3 of the Rules. Throughout these responses, Celanese will assume that the word will have its commonly used meaning, as set forth in Rule 192.3(b), and will respond accordingly. 5. Defendant objects to the definitions of "identify*1 contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the DEFINITIONS because they are overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 2 70500.1 6. Defendant objects to DEFINITION 6 to the extent information is sought concerning asbestos in a non-friable form. 7. Celanese further objects to any discovery request seeking to charge it with knowledge or information held by its "predecessors or subsidiaries" or requiring it to provide information regarding plants other than the one at which Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez allegedly worked, to wit, the Celanese Bishop, Texas facility. Celanese operated multiple facilities and employs thousands of workers. Accordingly, it is unduly burdensome, excessively expensive and harassing to require Celanese to answer these interrogatories as to all plants, and/or any plant at which plaintiff never worked. 8. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they are unlimited in time. 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs requests to the extent that they necessarily seek disclosure of trade secrets, proprietary material and other confidential information protected from discovery by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. The presence of an objection does not mean that Celanese possesses nonprivileged information responsive to a discovery request. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS Each of the following specific responses and objections incorporate by reference the above-stated general responses, objections and assertions of privilege. Subject to the foregoing, Celanese specifically responds as follows: FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalft's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production ano First Request for Admissions - Page 3 705OQ.1 RESPONSES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, state the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. The words "supplied any information" are vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, the information contained in these responses is derived from corporate documents, copies of which have previously been produced to plaintiffs counsel, and also supplied by former employees of Celanese, whose identities are or will be disclosed in Defendant's Rule 194.2(e) Disclosures. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestoscontaining products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plantiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 4 7050C.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises during the years at issue. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Celanese admits that, during the relevant time, some asbestos-containing thermal surface insulation, building products and gasket/packing materials were utilized at the plant from time to time. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If you admit the foregoing request, please list all asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises and for each product state the following: a. What these products were used for b. From whom these products were purchased c. Where these products were installed d. Specific persons or contractors who install these products e. The first year each product was no longer purchased and installed on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese refers plaintiff to its responses to Request for Admission No. 2, above. By way of further response, Celanese states that purchase and/or usage of asbestos-containing thermal surface insulation products was discontinued in 1972-1973 and that purchase and/or usage of other asbestos-containing materials was discontinued at various times thereafter. In response to the remainder of this interrogatory, se^ the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et at., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. Given the FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, Fust Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Page 5 70500.1 passage of time, the referenced documents generally constitute Celanese's best source of information on these topics. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all ordering and sales documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of such asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to invoices, price quotations, purchase orders, requisitions, bills of lading, and other purchasing and/or shipping documents of the similar nature. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 3. It is vague and ambiguous; and 4. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that during the time Plaintiff was working on Defendant's premises, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it assumes facts not in evidence and because it is based upon an improper premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. FfGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Frst Set of Interrogatores, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 6 705C0.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use at Defendant's Premises have been abated at any time. a. If so, list each person or company that performed such abatement services (including address and telephone number) b. State the dates and locations of each abatement procedure; c. State which asbestos-containing products were abated. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese believes that removal of asbestos-containing materials would have occurred at various times during the course of the plant's existence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all documents that in any way pertain to abatement of asbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos as Defendant's Premises, and in operation and maintenance plan. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; RCU-ROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Jun R/j/on Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Rags 7 70500.1 3. It is vague and ambiguous; and 4. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Plaintiff worked on premises owned by Defendant or by a predecessorin-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Celanese admits that Plaintiff alleges in his discovery responses that he worked at the Bishop Plant. Celanese has no information reasonably available to it to confirm Plaintiffs allegations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: If you admit the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your admission that Plaintiff was on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the discovery responses of plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez. ROUEROA- L-, fendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Kamon Gonzalez';: First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Product:;).* anc First Request for Admissions - Page 8 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees of contractors who were on your premises during the years at issue, including but not limited to sign-in logs, gate records, visitor's logs, identification badge logs and procedures, and other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 3. It is vague and ambiguous; and 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving your facilities, during the years at issue, including but not limited to fingerprinting or other methods of identifying contractor employees at your premises, and specifically including any fingerprinting or other records identifying the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; HC-'JEHOA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrcoatories, First Request For. Production and First Request fcr Admissions - Page 9 70500.1 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 3. It is vague and ambiguous; and 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, and following a reasonably diligent search, Celanese believes that no documents or materials responsive to this request exist. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the contractors who worked on your premises during the years at issue, and for each, state: a. The type of work performed by the contractor b. The dates such work was performed c. Identify your employee responsible for monitoring, verifying, or instructing concerning these services to be performed by such contractors. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is not limited to the time or plant at issue in this case; and 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see the discovery responses of plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez regarding the contractor(s) he claims to have worked for at the Bishop plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce the contract documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services on Defendant's Premises during the years at issue, including but not limited to invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, scope of work, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, and other contract documents of a similar nature. FKSUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fwst Set of Interrogatories, "irbt Request for Proouctt n ano First Request for Admbs'ons- Pnge 10 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 3. It is vague and ambiguous; and 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese further states that specifications and blue prints may exist. Investigation is ongoing, and non-privileged items that may be responsive to this request, if any, during the applicable time period may be produced at a mutually agreeable time and place. See also the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etai. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430, and the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14, 2000 in the Dolezal case. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each employee who was responsible for allowing contractor employees access to Defendant's Premises during the years at issue. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese believes that access by contractors such as those who employed plaintiff would have been controlled by plant security. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrocator.ss, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Papa 11 70500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises where Defendant used or applied asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to those objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos while working at the Defendant's Premise(s)? If the answer is anything other than"no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. RESPONSE: Celanese does not contend that plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez had exposure to any asbestos while working at Celanese's premises in Bishop, Texas. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as an employee of an independent contractor, worked around Defendant's employees who were using and/or applying asbestos-containing products. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Piaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fwst Request for Admissions - Pa<>s> 12 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiff worked on and/or around Defendant's Premises in areas where asbestos-containing products were installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that during the time period Plaintiffworked at premises, Defendantwas aware that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Celanese admits that, while it may have been aware at that time that long-term exposure to high concentrations of asbestos dust could potentially pose hazards to workers in certain industries, it had no reason to believe that any persons working on its premises stood at risk of incurring any asbestos-related injury. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Page 13 7C50C.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises during the time period Plaintiff was working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits that some asbestos-containing products were present at the Bishop plant during the stated period but denies that plaintiff Gonzalez had any exposure to those products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce any and all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use by you or your employees of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections and after a reasonably diligent inquiry, Celanese states that it is aware of no responsive materials for the time period Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez claims to have worked at the Bishop Plant. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Pags 14 70500.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify any and all warnings ever given by Defendant, if any, to Plaintiffs [sic] regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese has no information at this time regarding warnings which may have been given directly to plaintiff Gonzalez. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period of time Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Denied. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, Fust Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 15 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.14: If you deny the foregoing, produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: See the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe Defendant's safety policy as it relates to the use of asbestos-containing materials at jobsites where Defendant's employees were performing services. In your answer, please state: a. when, if ever, Defendant's employees were first warned about the hazards of asbestos exposure; and b. what instructions, if any, were given to Defendant's employees on the identification of materials which might or did contain asbestos. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome; and 3. It is based upon facts not in evidence and upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, Celanese believes that its employees were instructed or otherwise knowledgeable about using suitable care when working around high concentrations of dust, to include the use of respiratory protection and other dust control measures as they or their supervisors deemed appropriate. When information about potential asbestos health risks became generally available, additional personal protective equipment and asbestos handling/disposal policies were implemented. From at least some time in the 1970s, personnel were instructed to approach all insulation products and certain types of other materials as though they contained asbestos barring positive RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Pace 16 70500.1 evidence to the contrary. Celanese believes that contractor companies working at the plant followed parallel practices. The manufacturer's names of respiratory equipment used at the plant during the time plaintiff claims to have worked there are currently unknown. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all such safety policies. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Denied. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Plaintiff about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If the answer is anything other that "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fsot Request for Admissions - Page 17 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese refers plaintiff to its response to Interrogatory No. 7 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe all safety precautions taken by you or your employees (such as containment areas, warning signs, ventilation systems, evacuating the premises, etc.) for the protection of bystanders (including but not limited to Plaintiffs) from the hazards resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevar . to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see response to Interrogatory No. 8 above. See also the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta/., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a!., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. The referenced documents are Celanese's best source of information on the subject, and the information sought may be derived from them by plaintiff as easily as by Celanese. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Have you ever provided safety equipment to persons working on Defendant's Premises? If so, please list the safety equipment provided and indicate: a. when the equipment was first provided b. to whom the equipment was provided c. under what circumstances the equipment was provided d. Further, identify the person with the most knowledge of your "safety equipment" policies. FiOUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Recuest for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 18 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that respiratory protection was issued as appropriate to its own employees from the time the plant began operations. Contractors working at the plant generally provided respiratory protection to their own employees although Celanese occasionally loaned specialized respiratory equipment to contractors undertaking unusual tasks. The respiratory protection referenced above was used to protect individuals against excessive concentrations of dusts, vapors, and fumes. After reasonable inquiry, Celanese is currently unaware of any "one person with the most knowledge" of its safety equipment policies at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to contract employees working with or around asbestos from 1945 to the present for the purpose of protecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: After reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Celanese to admit or deny this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State in detail what tests have been conducted with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and the results of any such test. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 19 70500.1 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. The referenced documents are Celanese's best source of information on the subject, and the information sought may be derived from them by plaintiff as easily as by Celanese. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that Defendant, Defendant's representatives, insurance carriers and/or agents performed any measurements and/or studies prior to 1970 to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers in the air at Defendant's facility? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is not limited to the time plaintiff worked at Defendant's premises and is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese states after a reasonably diligent inquiry the answer to this interrogatory is unknown at the present time. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state each time any regulatory agency or other governing body has inspected the Defendant's premises to determine if health and safety regulations governing exposure to asbestos were being followed. Include in your response the date and results of each inspection, and state whether a written report was generated. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, Frst Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Pag* 20 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that, to its knowledge, no regulatory agencies have inspected the Bishop Plant solely to determine compliance with asbestos regulations. An OSHA inspection, however, in 1976 did examine compliance with federal asbestos regulations among many other issues. The report of that inspection was previously produced to plaintiffs counsel - see the documents produced on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 135* Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you did not erect containment barriers to prevent emission of asbestos dust at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Papa 21 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135,h Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeied 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that you did not utilize engineering controls such as isolation or enclosure at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. MGUSROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ration Gonzalez's Firs- Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 22 70500.1 Subject to these objections, see also the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, et at., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you did not utilize ventilation or exhaust systems to divert dust at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.18: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning RGUFROA-- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 23 70500.1 Fiberglas, et al., in the 239"' Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not utilize dust collection engineering controls to trap airborne asbestos dust at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. FIGUEROA- Defend**! Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Raws Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogators, First Request fo.t Production and First Request for Admissions - Paps 24 7C500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not require your employees to handle, mix, apply, remove, cut or score asbestos-containing products in a wet state to prevent emission of airborne asbestos fibers at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not evacuate the premises prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RGUERO.tr- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admbs-o a - 25 70SC0.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Have you everwamed workers on Defendant's Premises of the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If so, describe in detail the methods of such warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description of any written warnings relating to the hazards of asbestos in place at Defendant's Premises and state when the written warnings were installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Frst Set of Interp.ogatok'es, First Request for Production and Fust Request for Admissions - Pape 26 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because; 1. It is unlimited in time and scope; 2. It is overly broad , unduly burdensome, and harassing; and 3. It seeks matters that are nether relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-iabeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239lh Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Have you ever had a policy requiring workers on Defendant's premises to use respirators? If so, please: a. state when this policy was implemented; b. describe this policy in detail; c. state to whom it applied (i.e. Defendant employees and contractor employees); d. and describe what types and brand names of respirators were required by you. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant or time at issue in this case; 2. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing; and FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Produc rN and First Request for Admissions - Page 27 70500.1 3. It seeks matters that are neither relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese refers plaintiffto its response to Interrogatory No. 8 above. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not post warning, caution or hazard signs prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials by your employees at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-"0363. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissionc - Page 28 70500 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not issue any warnings to others at the worksites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the worksites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue and is unlimited in time; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence: and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135,h Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all documents reflecting payments made to contractors during the years at issue, including Plaintiffs employer, including but not limited to invoices, bills, check requests, requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents of a similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. FfGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production ano First Request for Admissions - Page 29 7P509.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because; 1. It is not limited to the plant at issue; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et a/, v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the use of asbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises created a substantial risk of injury. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is vague and ambiguous. 2. It is unlimited in time. Subject to these objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 22: Admit that during the years at issue, Defendant had to [sic] power to control Defendant's Premises. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Rai.l;n Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogator's, First Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Page 30 70500.-: RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, et at., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, Fkst Reouest for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 31 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting you denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergfas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etai. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et a!., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the c,ite and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. FJGUSROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 32 70EO0.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Doiezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors or the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled r iGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Jua*! Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Rec^est for Production ano First Request for Admissions - Page 33 70500.1 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to restrict the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the genera; scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Aomssions - Page 34 70500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dotezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a!., in the 239* Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 35 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope cf work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergtas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239<h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to oversee the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. h . tJEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plajntff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Frst Set or Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 36 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et al., in the 239lh Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that, during the years at issue. Defendant had the power to administerthe use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the mannerand method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RGUERQA- Of."endawt Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Puuntff Juan .-Lamon Conzaeet'3 First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production .and First Request for Admissions - Pag 37 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, ef at. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et at., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that during the years at issue, Defendant controlled Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etai, in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the RGUERQA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez'; First Set or Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fst Request for Admissions - Page 38 70500.1 Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et at. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a!., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant managed the use or condition or Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135,h Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, fkst Request fok Frodi'ction and First Request for Admissions - Page 39 70500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant directed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control overthe mannerand method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labe'^d 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant superintended the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site HGUEfiOA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatores, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 40 70500.1 and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant restricted the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 41 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etai, in the 135th Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 2391h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant regulated the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control overthe manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RGUEROA- Defendant Cet. ,hsse Ltd.'s Responses to Pl <.ntiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fst Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production ano Frst Request for Admissions - Page 42 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers'contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant governed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of Independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories. First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 43 70500.1 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239,h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of Independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contract': produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a!., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Raiin Gonzalez's F*wt Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production ano Fkst Request for Admosons - Pag 44 70500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant administered the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese admits only that it controlled its own employees' operations at the Bishop Plant, controlled the access of independent contractors and other third-parties to the site and the terms of entry, determined the general scope of work to be performed by independent contractors at the plant, and retained the ultimate right to monitor, inspect, and approve work done by independent contractors at the facility. However, Celanese denies that it exercised or retained control over the manner and method of work performed by independent contractors on the premises. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Doiezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs work was performed. HGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Sofcalez's First Set of Interrogator's, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 45 70500.1 RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et ai. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etai, in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you contend that at no time during the years at issue, Defendant did not have the right to advise or, if necessary, control the activities of employees of contractors, working on Defendant's Premises, who were engaged in activities which could be potentially hazardous to either themselves or to the employees of Defendant? If the answer is anything other that "no,'' identify each and every fact which supports this contention. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is not limited to the plant at issue, and it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 45 70500.1 Subject to these objections, Celanese states that, if it was aware a contractor's employees were engaged in an activity that posed an obvious and imminent risk of serious injury or damage, Celanese would bring the matter to the attention of the contractor's supervision and, if necessary, intervene. In all respects and at all times, however, safety and the observance of safe work practices were the responsibility of the contractor by law and by contract. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs employer performed the work requested by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etai., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezat case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etai. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239,h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that Plaintiff was not entirely free to do the work on Defendant's Premises in his own way. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plantff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fkst St'of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Rags 47 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, and subject to Celanese's understanding of this request, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001 -006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 239* Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that Plaintiffs employer was not entirely free to do the work requested by Defendant on Defendant's Premises in its own way. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, and subject to Celanese's understanding of this request, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogator's, First Request for Prooucton and First Request for Admissions - Page 48 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-8, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239"1 Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises. Subject to these objections, Celanese admits that at various times asbestos-containing gaskets were utilized at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that asbestos-containing pipe covering was installed at Defendant's Premises. n^USROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff J'JAN rtANWN GONZALEZ'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, FIRST Request for Production and First Request for Admksons - Page 49 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises. Subject to these objections, Celanese admits that at various times asbestos-containing pipe covering was utilized at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that asbestos-containing boilers were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises. Subject to these objections, Celanese, on information and belief, admits that boilers incorporating asbestos-containing components were present at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that asbestos-containing fireproofing was installed at Defendant's Premises. rlGUEXOA- Defend,w Celanefe Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff J'j <n Ramon Gont/lez'e First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Proouu .'0* an 0 First Request for Admissions - Page 50 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises and because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Celanese to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that asbestos-containing joint compound was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises. Subject to these objections, after reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Celanese to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that asbestos-containing insulation was installed at Defendant's Premises. H^UcZROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'j Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ftavtc-; Gonzalfz's Fret Set of Inters doatores, First Request for Proolcton and First Reciosn for Admissions - Page 51 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises. Subject to these objections, Celanese admits that at various times asbestos-containing insulation was utilized at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting you denial. RESPONSE: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that such installation was done under your direction, supervision, and/or control. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises: 2. It is vague and ambiguous because the subject of the phrase "such installation" is undefined; and 3. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial, including but not limited to all documents identifying the entities or individuals who directed, supervised, and/or controlled such installation activities. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fret Set of Interrogatories, Fkst Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 52 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises; 3. It is vague and ambiguous because the subject of the phrase "such installation'' is undefined; and 4. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state the first year you learned that persons could suffer physical injury through the inhalation of asbestos fibers and how Defendant became aware of the existence of asbestos hazards. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that it cannot say with any certainty the first year any one of its employees first became aware of a health risk potentially associated with asbestos exposure, or how such information may have been acquired. F1GUERC 4- Defend Celanese Ltd.'; Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Reguest for Production and First Reguest for / omissions - Page 53 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 4. It seeks the production of documents not in Celanese's custody or control. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moaka, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you supervised the health and safety procedures implemented by contractors working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises or to Plaintiffs employer; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plajntiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's 7irst Slt of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Recuest for Aqmbsons - Page 54 70500.1 Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you supervised the health and safety practices implemented by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. S3: Admit that you did not protect the Plaintiff from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is vague and ambiguous; and 2. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied as stated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). tlGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set Of Interrogatories, First Request for Production ano First Request for Admissions - Page 55 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etai. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, ef al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Do you contend that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was not a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, Celanese contends that plaintiff Gonzalez had no exposure to asbestos while working on its premises and further contends that plaintiff do'-c not suffer from an asbestos-related injury. See the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, and the medical reports regarding plaintiff Gonzalez produced or to be produced by all parties in this action. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury. FIGUEROA* Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Joan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Adubssons - Page 56 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is vague and ambiguous; and 2. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to those objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, ef al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time when Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises or to the plant at issue; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and HGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 57 70500.1 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to these objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that Defendant did not reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the use of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time when Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises or to the plant at issue; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise; and 4. It is argumentative and conclusory. Subject to these objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239,h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. HGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First REQU63T FOR PRODUCTION AND FkST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS - PaQS 58 70500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admit that Defendant's failure to reduce or eliminate risk of harm to Plaintiff was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is vague and ambiguous; and 2. It assumes facts not in evidence and is based upon an incorrect premise. Subject to those objections, denied REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: If you contend that while the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, Plaintiff was not exposed to sufficient quantities of asbestos dust to produce the disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fust Request for Admissions - Page 59 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: If you contend that Plaintiff is suffering from an asbestos disease as a result of exposures other than asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is predicated upon an incorrect premise; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to those objections, Celanese does not contend that Plaintiff is suffering from an asbestos-related disease. Nor does it contend that Celanese employees were working with asbestos-containing materials when Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez was allegedly working at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: If you contend that Plaintiff does not suffer from the asbestos-related disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. FIGUEROA- Defendant celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaktiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set op Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fkst Request for Admmsions - Pag* GO 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see Plaintiffs medical records and all medical reports regarding plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez produced or to be produced by all parties in this litigation. Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate based on additional discovery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: If you contend that Plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is predicated upon an incorrect premise; and 3. It assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to those objections, Celanese does not contend that Celanese employees were working with asbestos-containing materials during the time that Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez allegedly worked at the Bishop Plant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaktff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Frst Set of Interrogatores, Fust Request for Production and Fst Request for Admwsions-Pig* 61 70500.1 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the Arthur Brothers' contracts produced on April 14,2000 in the Dolezal case, and all medical reports regarding plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez produced by all parties to this action. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention of destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system of information management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interroqatores, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 62 70600.1 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. it is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time or plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to these objections, see documents bates labeled 009189-009219 produced to plaintiffs counsel on September 29, 2000 in the Moake case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: Produce any and all documentation, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or print-outs thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method of access or retrieval, and/or location of Defendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) described in the preceding paragraphs. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time or plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese has no materials that are responsive to this request. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, identify the individuals FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, Fust Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Pag 63 70500.1 who received, maintained, reviewed, or disseminated the information contained in such written materials. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time or plant at issue in this case; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, it is believed that the corporate medical department may have received materials of this nature from time to time, and the company was certainly aware ofthe OSHA regulations. The individuals in the medical department during the relevant time would have been Ernest M. Dixon, M.D. and Charles S. Laubly. Mr. Laubly disseminated copies of the OSHA regulations and related materials to the company's plants. At the plant level, various individuals would have disseminated information and material regarding asbestos issues. See the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et a/, v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et el., in the 135m Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Produce the written materials referred to in the interrogatory above. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time or plant at issue in this case; 2. It seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is vague and ambiguous. ROUBROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plamtof Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fret Set op (nterrooatorics, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Psgs 64 70500.1 Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admit that Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant within two (2) years of the date of discovering his asbestos-related condition orthe existence of any asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE: After reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable Celanese to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: Admit that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: Admit that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is not limited to the time when Plaintiff claims to have worked on Cetanese's premises; and 2. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Celanese admits that a small amount of asbestoscontaining materia) is still present (although not used) at the Bishop Plant. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plantff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set op Interrogator's, Fmst Request for Production and Fust Request for Admissions - Pb* 85 70500.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: Admit that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. it is not limited to the time when Plaintiff claims to have worked on Celanese's premises; and 2. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1972. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1973. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1974. RESPONSE: Admitted. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fhst Request for Admissions - Page 66 70300.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1975. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1976, RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1977. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSiON NO. 68: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1978. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1979. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fmst Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fast Request for Admissions - Pag* 67 70500.1 RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ..70: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1980. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1981. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1982. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1983. RESPONSE: Admitted. FIGUEROA- Defendant Ceianese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogator**, First Request for Production and First Request for Aombsions - Paga 68 70600.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1984. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1985. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1986. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1987. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1988. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintff Juan Ra*on Gonzalez's Frst set of Interrogator's, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 69 70500.1 RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-6-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: Produce all documents disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards of asbestos and all documents which refer to such documents. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plasttff Juan Ramon 6onzale2's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Pag* 70 70500.1 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 4. it seeks production of documents not in Celanese's custody or control. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etaf. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et a!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et ai., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: Produce all documents, that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose of ascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 71 7050D.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: Produce all safety meeting minutes or other documents, that refer to the dangers of asbestos safety measures [sic] to be used in the vicinity of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the Hem or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese has no documents that refer to the dangers of asbestos safety measures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to abatement of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on HGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Puwntef Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fust Set of Interrogatories, Frst Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Page 72 70600.1 September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to the installation of asbestos products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-fabeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: Produce all documents that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Pag* 73 70500.1 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et a/, v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etai, in the 135th Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etai v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Produce all documents related to the medical condition of Plaintiff at anytime during his work at Defendant's Premises. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical notes and/or medical records of any kind, annual physical forms, and employment records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Celanese possesses no such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Produce Plaintiffs entire personnel file from Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese has no `personnel file" concerning Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce all documents that reflect the layout of Defendant's Premises, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products. RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 74 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B. Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, ef a/., in the 135th Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fibergias, et al., in the 239,h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: Produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fibergias, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogators, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 75 70500.1 Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Produce all photographs of asbestos products in place or asbestos-containing products being fabricated or utilized at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is unlimited in time; and 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese is unaware of any responsive photographs. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Produce all photographs of warning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is unlimited in time; and 2. It seeks.matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese is unaware of any responsive photographs. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all documents relating to any individuals [sic] claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises, including, but not limited to, workers compensation claims. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fust Set of Interrogator's, Frst REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUEST FOR AcUBSIONS - Pag* 76 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It seeks information and documents invasive of the privacy and confidentiality rights of third parties; and 4. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that on information and belief it received its first workers' compensation claim in or around 1983. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: Produce all documents, including but not limited to, corporate minutes, which mention the hazards or potential hazards of asbestos. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. It seeks production of documents not in Celanese's custody or control. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause HGUEROAr- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Fast Request for Admissions - Pag* 77 70500.1 No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a!., in the 239,h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: Produce all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading and purchase orders, related to the purchase of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135* Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: Produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plwntiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request tor Proouction and Frst Request for Admbsions - Page 78 70500.1 2, It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239,h Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogator's, Frst Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 79 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: Produce all reports, writings (whether published or unpublished) and/or other documentation written, created and/or edited by any of your experts that in anyway pertain to asbestos and the hazards and/or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It is vague and ambiguous and overly broad; 2. It exceeds the scope of permissible discovery referenced in Rule 192.3 of the Rules; and 3. It seeks production of documents not in Celanese's custody or control. Celanese will comply with the Rules and will produce documents, if any, prepared by its experts in anticipation of a testifying expert's testimony. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: Produce all documents which will be used at the time of trial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It exceeds the scope of permissible discovery referenced in Rule 192 of the Rules; 2. 11 fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and 3. It is vague and ambiguous. Celanese cannot know what potential exhibits it may use to cross examine witnesses at this time. Celanese will comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable provisions of the Court's Asbestos Standing Order. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Page BO 70S00.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: Produce documents between Defendant and any of its worker's compensation carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that it is unaware of any responsive materials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Produce a copy of all regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague, ambiguous and unduly burdensome- and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plamtff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrooatores, First PageRequest for Production and Fust Request for Admissions - 81 70500.1 September 29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, &t a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: Produce all documents which contain complaints by employees of the Defendant's Premises regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required oy Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that it is unaware of any responsive materials. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: Produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives of Defendant's Premises regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because; 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and RGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Piamtiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogator's, First Request for Production and Fslst Request for Admissions - Page 82 70500.1 3. It is unlimited in time and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Celanese states that it is unaware of any responsive materials. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: Produce all documents, organization charts or rosters which identify the members of the management at the Defendant's Premises and their areas of responsibility during the time period of Plaintiffs work at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Subject to these objections, Celanese states that it is unaware of any responsive materials. Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 92: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's net worth, including but not limited to all "lO-K'' forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership of Defendant's Premises. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogator**, First Request for Production and Fust Request for Aombsions - Pag S3 70500.1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. it seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Celanese's predecessor in interest purchased the land and built the plant at issue in this case. Celanese has continuously owned this facility to this day. Thus, there are no documents "which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership of Defendant's Premises." REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94: Produce all indemnity agreements, assignments ofliability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Celanese's predecessor in interest purchased the land and built the plant at issue in this case. Celanese has continuously owned this facility to this day. Thus, Celanese does not believe there are documents responsive to this request. FtGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrooatomcs, Fsut Request for Production and Frst Request for Adnbsions - Psgs B4 70500.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95: Produce all contracts pertaining to work done by contractors at Defendant's facility. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas. See also the 1968 and 1977 contracts between Defendant and Arthur Brothers, Inc., which were served on Baron & Budd on April 14, 2000, in the Dolezal case. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September 29, 2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et a/., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96: Please produce any printed material produced or published by Defendant containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos? RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of ^iterrogatones, Fust Request for Production and Frst Request for Admissions - Pag* 85 70500.1 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13,1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135* Judicial District Court ofVictoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced to Baron & Budd on September29,2000 in Cause No. 90-G-2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et ai, in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 97: Produce all documents and other tangible things relating to the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, see Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Rule 194 Disclosures, subpart (k) (which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length and which was served on plaintiff on March 12,2001) for a list of medical and/or employment records relating to plaintiff Gonzalez obtained by Celanese. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 98: If you contend that you did not own or control the facility(ies) during any time period that Plaintiff worked (or believes he worked) at the facility(ies), please produce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that included the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment of the facility(ies); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Plamtff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fust Set of Interrogatomes, Feist Request for Production and First Request for Aomssions - Pag* B6 70500.1 RESPONSE: Not applicable. Respectfully submitted, KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP OF COUNSEL: Marc E. Kasowitz Hector Torres KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212)506-1700 (212) 506-1800 (Facsimile) 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77002-2730 (713)220-8800 (713) 222-0843 (Facsimile) HAWKINS & PARNELL, LLP Michael E. Hutchins 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (404) 614-7400 (404) 614-7500 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD. FIGUEROA- Defendant Celanese Lto.'s Responses to Plwtiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Psg* 87 70500.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via facsimile and/or hand delivery and/or by United States mail, postage prepaid, to plaintiff's counsel of record on this [zfo-day of March, 2001. Angela RGUEROA- Dependant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to Piaintff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's Fkst Set of Interrogator's, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions-Pags 88 70300.1 NO. 99-6090-H JUAN T. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. OWENS CORNING (A/K/A OWENS CORNING CORPORATION), ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS 28TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE In accordance with Rule 194 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and in response to Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure, Defendant Celanese Ltd. provides the following information in relation to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez: (a) The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit: Celanese Ltd. is the correct name of this defendant. (b) The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties: At this stage of the suit, Celanese has insufficient information to know if all proper parties are joined. (c) The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party's claims or defenses: J6P [L/wfL. On the basis of the limited information and vague allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Petition, Celanese believes the following affirmative defenses do or may apply to this case: The sole proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries or damages were the acts or omissions of other parties or persons over whom Celanese had no control and for whom Celanese is not legally responsible. No act or omission on the part of Celanese either caused or contributed to Plaintiffs alleged injuries or damages. Further, Celanese owed Plaintiff no duty, legal or otherwise, and is therefore not liable to Plaintifffor any alleged breach of any alleged duty. Ate/ kuiJw/ Defendant Celanese Ltd's Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure - Page 1 n4Tf OffTF --j[Hrrv\L* 70591 1 As to any injuries or damages Plaintiff alleges to have incurred, Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of incurring any of the injuries or damages alleged. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and such failure on his part proximately caused any injuries or damages alleged. Plaintiffs claims against Celanese are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and the doctrines of laches and waiver. Finally, it is unclear from Plaintiffs' Petition if or when Plaintiff worked at any Celanese facility, and if so, which facility. Assuming Plaintiff did perform some type of independent contractor work at a Celanese facility, Celanese denies that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at all, or in sufficient quantities to have caused any harm. Celanese believes its plants are and were safe and well-maintained industrial facilities, and there would have been insufficient opportunity for any such exposure. (e) The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each Identified person's connection with the case: At this time, Celanese has insufficient information regarding Plaintiff orwhere and when he worked to say who at Celanese or elsewhere has knowledge of relevant facts. The following persons may, however, have knowledge of relevant facts: Ernest M. Dixon, M.D. former Corporate Medical Director 6305 Evermay Drive McLean, VA 22101 Mr.Charles A. Laubly former Corporate Industrial Hygienist 2225 North Tucson Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85716 Investigation is ongoing, and Celanese will supplement as discovery progresses. (f) For any testify expert: 1) the expert's name, address, and telephone number; 2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify; 3) the general substance ofthe expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or ifthe expert Is not retained by, Defendant Calanasa Ltd.'s Rasponsa to Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure - Page 2 70591.1 employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such Information; 4) Ifthe expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party: (A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and (B) the expert's current resume and bibliography: Celanese does not have sufficient information at this time to decide which, if any, experts might be needed or utilized in this case. Celanese reserves the right to supplement. (g) Any discoverable indemnity and insuring agreements: Celanese is investigating to determine whether any such agreements exist. Celanese reserves the right to supplement. (I) Any discoverable witness statements: None. (k) In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that Is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue ofan authorization furnished by the requesting party: Celanese is in possession of various medical records of plaintiff Sanchez by virtue of authorizations furnished by him. Please see the list of those records below. Because the records are voluminous, they are not being produced herewith. The records are available, however, for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the offices of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, 700 Louisiana, Suite 2200, Houston, Texas 77002. 1. Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg * Radiology - affidavit of no records Billing - affidavit of no records 2. Petroff, Peter Dr. * Billing Medical Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure - Page 3 70591.1 3. Hemmert, Jerome K. Dr. Billing Medical 4. Mundy Contract Maintenance, Inc. Personnel, payroll and medical 5. McDermott Marine Engineering Personnel andpayroll - affidavit of no records Respectfully submitted, KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP Angela R. ftoyt State Bar No. 00796783 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77002-2730 (713) 220-8800 (713) 222-0843 (Facsimile) HAWKINS & PARNELL Michael E. Hutchins 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (404) 614-7400 (404) 614-7500 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Response to Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure Page 4 70591.1 OF COUNSEL: Marc E. Kasowitz Hector Torres Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman llp 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-1700 (212) 506-1800 (Facsimile) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via United States certified mail, return receipt requested, on counsel for plaintiffs, and via regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on this day of March, 2001. Defendant Celaneee Ltd.'* Response to Plaintiff's Request for Disclosure - Page 5 70591.1 NO. 99-6090-H JUAN T. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. OWENS CORNING (A/K/A OWENS CORNING CORPORATION), ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY,TEXAS 28TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD.'S CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY I, Angela R. Hoyt, counsel for Defendant Celanese Ltd., certify that on the 12th day of March, 2001,1 served the following discovery by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the respective attorneys of record for Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez: 1) Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Responses to PlaintiffJuan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, Requestfor Production and Request for Admissions; and 2) Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Response to Plaintiffs Requests for Disclosure. Respectfully submitted, KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77002-2730 (713) 220-8800 (713) 222-0843 (Facsimile) 70592.1 HAWKINS & PARNELL Michael E. Hutchins 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (404) 614-7400 (404) 614-7500 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD. OF COUNSEL: Marc E. Kasowitz Hector Torres Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman llp 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-1700 (212) 506-1800 (Facsimile) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via United States certified mail, return receipt requested, on counsel for plaintiffs, and by regular U.S. Mail on all known counsel of record for defendants, on this \"z?Nlav of March, 2001. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Certificate of Written Discovery - Page 2 70592.1 1633 S^OAOWAY New YORK, NEW YORK iCOlG 212*506.1 700 Kasowitz, Benson, Torses & Friedman llp 700 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 2200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 713-220-0800 FACSIMILE: 713-222-0043 ONE GATEWAY CENTER NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102 973-6A5-SAG2 WRrtER's DIRECT OUL NUMBER 713-22CWJ817 March 12,2001 Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Mr. Oscar Soliz Nueces County District Clerk Nueces County Courthouse 901 Leopard Street Corpus Christ!, Texas 78401 Re: Cause No. 99-609Q-H; Juan T. Figueroa, et a!, vs. Owens Coming (a/k/a Owens Coming Corporation), et ai.; In the 28th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas Dea. Mr. Soliz: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter is an original and one copy of Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s Certificate of Written Discovery regarding the following: 1) Defendant Celanese's Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions: 2) Defendant Celanese's Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Disclosure. Please acknowledge filing of same by placing your file stamp on the copy provided and returning it to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours ARH/Ile Enclosures cc: Counsel of Record 70503.1 1633 BROACNVAY NEW YORK, NEW YORK OOI9 21^-606-1 700 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman llp 700 LOUISIANA STREET. SUITE! 2200 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 FACSIMILE: 7I3-222-OQ43 ONE GATEWAY CENTER NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102 973-64S-9462 waiter's direct dial number 713-220-6617 March 12. 2001 Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Ms. Stephanie Finch Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Re: Cause No. 99-6090-H; Juan T. Figueroa, et al. vs. Owens Coming (a/k/a Owens Coming Corporation), eta!.; In the 28th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas Dear Ms. Finch: Enclosed please find the following: 1) Defendant Celanese's Responses to Plaintiff Juan Ramon Gonzalez's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions; 2) Defendant Celanese's Response to Plaintiffs Requests for Disclosure; and 3) Defendant Celanese's Certificate of Written Discovery. Very truly yours, ARH/lle Enclosures 70564.1