Document vBgv0yrkNyG4QBn8x6R173qeZ

CAUSE NO. 96-00261 LLOYD CHAMPION AN DORIS MAE CHAMPION; WILTON CHESTER JORDAN AND FRANK LEWIS SAUNDERS H VS. OWENS-CORNING F1BERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Plaintiff Lloyd Champion, by and through their attorney ofrecord, Peter A. Kraus /Kimberly A. Castles, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219 Defendants Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC), pursuant to Rules 166(b) and 168 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedures, hereby serve their Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The following responses are being provided after diligent investigation and inquiry by Defendant. However, because some of the evidence relating to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' Second Set ofInterrogatories occurred more than forty (40) years ago, the availability of persons involved and the existence of applicable documents has been limited. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories relate are deceased, retired, or are otherwise unavailable to NSRC, and investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these interrogatories may have been destroyed in keeping with normal corporate record retention policy. Accordingly, some answers are possibly DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pafe 1 incomplete. NSRC's investigation is continuing and should additional information surface, supplemental responses will be submitted. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every response provided hereinafter: This response is accurate as ofthe date ofthe Answers ofDefendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories. However, NSRC's investigation is continuing, and NSRC cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. NSRC objects to responding to this interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it allegedly employed Plaintiff. NSRC objects to providing information about geographic locations and operating units within the system other than those at which and for whom Plaintiff worked. The basis for such objections are that any responses would be irrelevant to the subject matter ofthe pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive to NSRC. The responses that follow, unless otherwise apparent from the context, are limited to the specific period (1953-1963) that NSRC allegedly employed Plaintiff as a switchman; and to the area in and around Selma, Demopolis, Mobile and Rome, Alabama, the places where Plaintiff allegedly worked for NSRC. Defendant, Norfolk Southern Corporation, objects to answering each and every interrogatory in this Second Set ofInterrogatories due to the fact that the Plaintiff was never an employee ofthis Defendant and it was not in existence at the time ofthe Plaintiffs alleged employment. Effective June 1, 1982, Southern Railway Company and Norfolk and Western Railway Company became sister corporations and the stock of each became owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation, a non- carrier holding company which had never operated a railroad. Each of the carriers continued to operate as separate legal entities, a practice which continues to date. Southern Railway Company DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pc2 subsequently changed its name to Norfolk Southern Railway Company, but never employed the Plaintiff. Norfolk Southern Railway Company remains a separate and distinct entity. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: At any time prior to 1980 did Defendant or anyone at the direction of Defendant conduct an investigation, survey or other process to identify the primary emission sources of airborne asbestos fibers and/or to assess and/or sample for the detection of the quantity of or threshold limit value ofairborne asbestos fibers in relation to Defendant's railroad? Ifso, please identify with particularity the entity and/or persons conducting such investigation(s), survey(s) or test(s), the dates conducted and the results. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Did Defendant ever arrange for any labor agency, insurance company, government agency, inspectors or anyone from your company to go into any ofDefendant's railway car(s) and/or engine(s) and/or locomotive(s) and/or roundhouses and/or shops to take dust level counts related to asbestos dust? If so, identify with particularity the party(ies) conducting such procedure(s), the dates conducted, the purpose of such procedure(s), and all results of such procedure(s). ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information winch is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES P*ge3 attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Did Defendant obtain facts, knowledge or information from any industry, insurance company, governmental agency, union, and/or any other entity regarding the potential health effects and/or health hazards created for persons exposed to airborne asbestos dust? Ifso, please list all sources of such information and the dates received. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information winch is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: List each person who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians (including those physicians who would have been responsible for conducting physicals, evaluations or screenings ofDefendant's employees) and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals who has had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of airborne asbestos dust. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 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 ofhuman beings? If so, state: DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 4 A. The name of each such publication; B. The date ofpublication and the names of the author and publisher (ifany); C. The date received by Defendant; D. The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Has Defendant at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of airborne asbestos? If so, state: A. The name and address of each such association or organization; B. The dates during which Defendant member; C. The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations; D. Whether any ofthose publications are still in your possession, and if so: ANSWER: 1. A description ofthe publications, including the date; 2. The current location of such publications; 3. The custodian of such publications; 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pje5 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As to the disease asbestosis, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant became aware of the existence ofthe disease; C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers alone or in conjunction with second hand smoke. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary.. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: As to the disease lung cancer, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure; C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiaries or predecessors in a written form; F. Who is the custodian of such information; G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pace 6 ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant first learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers; B. The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers; C. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware ofthe disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information; H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pace? INTERROGATORY NO. 10: As to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer and/or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant first learned that such diseases were caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans; B. What cancers has the Defendant become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers; C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation; D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure; E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form; G. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did Defendant maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting; B. The general subject matter discussed at each meeting; C. Who was in attendance at each meeting; D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained; E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format; F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles ofthose individuals. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pa(e 8 ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Does Defendant intend to call a company representative as a witness at the trial of this case? If so, list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called; B. A summary ofthe testimony expected to be given by each such witness; C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style ofthe case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs) in that case. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope ofdiscovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Does Defendant have, or has it ever had, a Medical Department or Medical Section? If so, state: A. The year such Medical Department or Section was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department or Section has operated continuously since being established; DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 9 C. The name of each director, chief; or head ofyour Medical Department or Section year by year, beginning with the first year of its existence and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department or Section. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state whether written warnings were placed at any locations adjacent to or near asbestos in place on Defendant's railroad(s), at anytime from 1930 to the present. If so, please describe with specificity such signs, including size, color, wording, etc. Additionally, please state the number of such signs that were installed and indicate the specific location of each such sign and the dates such sign was at that location. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope ofdiscovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Does Defendant have, or has it ever had, a Safety Department? If so, state: A. The year such Safety Department was established; B. Whether or not such Safety Department has operated continuously since being established; DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Fate 10 C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Safety Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Safety Director or Safety Department, and the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Safety Department. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope ofdiscovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 16$. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state whether a medical monitoring program, medical examination program or other medical surveillance was provided to your employees and specifically to Plaintiff If so, please indicate what records of such program, examination or surveillance concerning Plaintiff exist at this time, including but not limited to reports, x-rays and medical notes. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether Defendant has at any time provided safety equipment to the Plaintiff and/or the railroad workers of Defendant present at any time during Plaintiffs employment by Defendant for protection against the inhalation of airborne asbestos dust, including but not limited to masks, respirators, other breathing devices, protective clothing, protective gloves, etc. For each such item of equipment, please indicate when such item was first provided, under what circumstances, and the name, address and telephone number of the person most knowledgeable concerning such provision. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pafc 11 ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state whether Defendant ever agreed by contract, agreement, negotiation, collective bargaining or otherwise, to provide masks to Plaintiff and other crew members and/or employees of Defendant working with or around asbestos products. If so, please state verbatim the specific agreement or contract and/or other document by winch Defendant agreed to provide such masks. Include the date the agreement was entered into, the period oftime covered by the agreement and the parties to the agreement. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; and, the request is ambiguous. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please state the precise State and/or Federal regulations, laws, statutes, or other authority pertaining to industrial hygiene or worker safety and health that governed, regulated controlled and/or were applicable to airborne asbestos exposure in your operations and/or in relation to Defendant's railroad. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 12 Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please describe each and every occasion during the past thirty years when any regulatory agency or other governing body inspected Defendant's railroad to ascertain whether health and safety regulations were being followed or adhered to, including the date of such inspection and/or meeting, the results, and whether a written report was produced. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms of time; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the infoimation necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope ofdiscovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. Defendants further object to this interrogatory for the reason that k requests information about a time period subsequent to Plaintiffs alleged employment. Without waiver NSRC states, it is unknown whether any such inspections may have been made during the time ofPlaintiffs alleged employment at the location of his alleged employment. To NSRC's knowledge there are no records ofany such inspections which gave rise to negative reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use on Defendant's railroad, has been removed or abated at any time from 1965 to the present. If so, please answer the following: A. List each and every abatement company or other contractor involved with tile removal of asbestos, including address and telephone number, dates of such removal, and whether a contract for such removal exists; B. Indicate the total amount in dollars spent by Defendant to abate or remove asbestos from the railroads. C. State whether any "removal plan" or organized written criteria or other document related to asbestos removal on the railroad(s) was ever prepared by Defendant; D. State whether corporate documents discussing or relating generally to the removal of asbestos are in existence and, if so, where they are maintained; E. State precise dates and locations when and where such removal or abatement took place for each railroad. DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 13 ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is unlimited in terms oftime; the request in unlimited in terms ofgeographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; the overly broad nature of the request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and, the request seeks information which is private, confidential and/or proprietary. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant was first advised of such limits or concentrations; B. The name ofthe employee or official of the company receiving such advice; C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance of this request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; the request infringes on the attorney work product privilege; the request infringes on the investigative/party communication privilege; the request infringes on the attorney-client privilege; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please state whether and when Defendant received a copy of the Fleischer/Drinker Report published in 1945/1946. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pate 14 ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the ground the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please describe all actions taken by Defendant to comply with the Boiler Inspection Act, previously 45 U.S.C. 23 during the past thirty-five (35) years, now designated at 49 U.S.C. 20701 et seq. ANSWER: Defendants object to the form and substance ofthis request on the following grounds: the request is overly broad; the request in unlimited in terms of geographic scope; the request is vague; the request is ambiguous; the request seeks information which is not relevant and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; the overly broad nature ofthe request is such that it would be unduly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to gather the information necessary to respond to this request; and, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 166b ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories submitted exceed the number permitted by Rule 168. Respectfully submitted, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 112 East Pecan Street, Suite 2100 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone (210) 978-7700 Telecopier (210) 978-7796 By: J State Bar No. 20708500 LEO D. FIGUEROA State Bar No. 06984100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, NORFOLK AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION DEFENDANTS* OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pafe IS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Peter A. Kraus / Kimberly A Castles, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219, on this the ~-7 H^dav of August, 1997. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS* SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pife 16