Document vVBov9pjwxNr87aGZ8QODX0jY

IGNACIO SERAFIN vs. OWENS-CORNING, ET AL 2000-757 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.'S FIRST AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES . REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO: Plaintiff by and through their attorney of record, Holly Huart, Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75219-4281. NOW COMES CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendant herein, and makes and files this its Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admission and Request for Production propounded to Defendants. Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. //_ David W. Ledyard State Bar No. 12109400 Michael T. Bridwell State Bar No. 02979600 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 FAX(409)981-1010 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. MTB/23022/198183 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing is being furnished to Plaintiffs' counsel by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to -all othor counsel ofrecord-by regular mail, on this the day of ftf*'1 ^ ,2001. MTB/23022/198183 2 A. OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY Defendant objects to the whole ofPlaintiffs' discovery requests as so overly broad and unduly burdensome that Plaintiffs' discovery constitutes harassment. This suit involves a person employed by a finite number ofemployers at a finite number oflocations during specific years. Plaintiffs' claim is that the injured party was exposed to asbestos containing products on Defendant's premises during the course and scope ofhis employment with known employers. Plaintiffs should be seeking production of records and information relevant to issues raised by that particular fact situation. Plaintiffs' attempts to expand discovery to include information regarding irrelevant time periods and irrelevant materials produced at irrelevant locations by irrelevant persons or entities constitutes an impermissible abuse ofthe discovery rules and general misuse of the laws of the State of Texas. B. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DEFINITIONS Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' definitions ofthe terms "Defendant", "you", and "yours", and "your company". To the extent the terms could be read to refer to Defendant's attorneys, any interrogatory or requests for production utilizing any of these terms necessarily invades the work product and/or attorney-client privileges embodied in Rule 192.5 ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. To the extent the terms are intended to include predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, forms of subsidiaries, forms of subsidiaries ofpredecessors, and/or affiliates, as well as present and former officers, directors, agents, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate Defendant, any interrogatory or requests for production utilizing these terms is so overly broad and over burdensome as to make any requests utilizing the term virtually impossible to answer. Further, to the extent the definition is intended to include any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, forms of subsidiaries, forms of subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, any interrogatory or requests for production utilizing any of these terms is necessarily overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs' apparent attempt to place upon Defendant the burden to seek information from former officers, directors, agents and employees over whom Defendant no longer has dominion or control. Any interrogatory or requests utilizing any of these terms is a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law as concerns discovery. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "document", "documents", "written materials", or "printed materials" as the definition ofthose terms renders any requests utilizing any of these terms overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and reduces any such discovery requests to a "fishing expedition" in discovery. Defendant further objects to the definition ofthese terms as calling for the production ofmaterial or information which is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms to the extent it purports to include an obligation to locate and produce information or documentation which is no longer in the possession or control of this Defendant or from entities who are not parties to this cause of action. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "meeting" or "meetings" as any interrogatory or request for production utilizing those terms is overly broad, and over burdensome in that it purports to require documentation or information concerning any casual or coincidental meeting. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "describe" or "description" as it is vague, ambiguous and requires Defendant to speculate on what identification rises to the level of sufficient particularity so as to enable one to "fully comprehend" or understand the place, thing or occurrence described. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "medical advisory capacity" in that the definition renders any interrogatory or request for production utilizing the term overly broad, over burdensome, harassing and calling for information or material which is neither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The definition ofthe term utilizes the term "Defendant" which is, itself, defined in Plaintiffs definition No. 1. Please refer to Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs definition of the term "Defendant" which is incorporated herein the same as if fully set forth at length. 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "medical department" and "safety department" in that the definition renders any interrogatory or request for production utilizing the term overly broad, over burdensome, harassing and calling for information or material which is neither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The definition ofthe term utilizes the term "Defendant" which is, itself, defined in Plaintiffs definition No. 1. Please refer to Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "Defendant" which is incorporated herein the same as if fully set forth at length. 7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "potential health hazards" or "health hazards" in that any interrogatory or request for production utilizing these terms is vague and ambiguous in that issues exists and minds differ with respect to impairments or disabilities and their associations with exposures to asbestos dust and fibers, if any. 8. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "years at issue" as the definition assumes that Plaintiff worked on the premises of Defendant for the entire period reflected in the definition, which is denied. Any interrogatory, request for admission or production utilizing this term is necessarily overly broad, over burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MTB/23022/198183 4 c. 1. Many ofPlaintifF s requests call for documents that "relate to", "refer to" or the like regarding various topics which necessarily call for documentation which is comprised ofattorney work product and is exempted from discovery. Defendant objects to producing any such material and specifically reserves the right not to do so. MTB/23022/198183 5 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. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it invades the work product privilege embodies in Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules ofEvidence. Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, the interrogatories to which this question applies are, for the most part, interrogatories to which no one person has a precise answer. Interrogatories inquiring about expert witnesses, settlement agreements, persons with knowledge of relevant fact, trial witnesses and legal contentions are answered by counsel. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 197.2(d). The remaining questions require that a conclusion be reached from looking at documents or talking to various people, both within this Defendant's organization and without, and therefore, the answers are based on information obtained from other persons. Answers given to these interrogatories are based on the best information which is available to counsel upon reasonable inquiry, at the time the answers are given. Defendant's answers are accordingly based upon the best information which is available to Defendant and Defendant's counsel upon reasonably inquiry. The interrogatories are being executed by an authorized representative of Defendant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos containing products, asbestos containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when MTB/23022/198183 6 Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waving the foregoing, Defendant admits that it ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos containing products for certain locations at certain times, but denied that any such materials were installed, used or removed by Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to the pleadings, discovery, depositions and documents produced or referred to in this case and in Irma Bustamante, individually and as personal respresentative of the heirs and estate ofJose Peralta, deceased vs. Owens Corning, et al (hereinafter "Bustamante"). 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: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. MTB/23022/198183 7 Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that certain asbestos containing products were in place at certain locations in the refinery from 19791985, but denies that any such products were installed, used or removed by Plaintiff. If further answer is required, same is denied. 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: 1. What these products were used for 2. From whom these products were purchased 3. Where these products were installed 4. Specific persons or contractors who install these products 5. The first year each product was no longer purchased and installed on Defendant's Premises ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and it calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in scope to the time periods during which Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving any of the foregoing, we have located a number of purchase orders, invoices specifications and work orders from the El Paso facility which contain information regarding the use or purchase of such products. (Some of the documents produced may not reflect actual use ofsuch products because we may have located and produced information received from manufacturers and suppliers from whom we purchased no products.) Please refer to our response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 19 provided in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. Please refer also to documents produced in Bustamante, for example bates numbers CHEV BB 010391, 010483, 010820, MTB/23022/198183 8 011018,011097,011195-011211,011224-011228,011338-011382,011404-011423, 011480-011518, 011589-011641, 011726, 011728-011733, 011742-011761, 011892-011902, 012025, 012026, 012031, 012087-012097. 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 oflading, and other purchasing and/or shipping documents of the similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and it calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects to this request as it is further overly broad in that it is not limited in scope to the time periods during which Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, please see the documents provided Plaintiffs counsel in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary HermosiUo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2, and see response to Request for Production No. 19 of those documents. (Some of the documents produced may not reflect actual use ofsuch products because we may have located and produced information received from manufacturers and suppliers from whom we purchased no products. See documents produced in Bustamante, Bates numbers CHEV BB 010213-010229,010161-010162,010171010176,010231,010391,010483,010820,011018,011097,011195-011211,011224011228,011338-011382,011387,011404-011423,011480-011518,011589-011641, 011726,011728-011733,011742-011761,011892-011902,012025,012026,012031, 012087-012097. Please note that some ofthe records produced may reflect use of products which do not contain asbestos. Furthermore, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 Admit that during the time Plaintiffwas 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: Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited MTB/23022/198183 9 to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked and the request thereby additionally calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant is unable to admit or deny whether such was foreseeable in the particular area in which Plaintiff may have been working but denied that any such activity took place from 1979-1985 without adequate precaution. If further answer is required, same is denied. 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. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as the term "in use" is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context of this suit. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MTB/23022/198183 10 Without waiving any of the foregoing, please refer to our response in to Request No. 8 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, etal; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. and the documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request No. 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, etalv. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335 -7359. See also documents produced in Bustamante, for example Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335 -7359 See also Bates numbers CHEV BB 010128-010141, 010196-010199, 010390, 010392-010395, 010396010470, 010484-490, 010501-010550, 010553-010554, 010588-010592, 010605010732,010741-010819,010821-010827,010831-010989,010992-011097,011425, 011477,011480,011519-011673,011684-011685,011713-011714,011734,011763, 011903-011970,011982-011994,011995-011996, 012081-012086,012098-012127, 012217-012257. 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 ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises, and in operation and maintenance plan. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and it calls for information which is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in scope to the time period when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, see the documents referred to in response to Request No. 8 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. and the documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request No. 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335-7359. See also Defendant's response to request for production in Bustamante, Bates numbers CHEV BB 010390, 010392-010395, 010396-010470, 010484-490, 010501-010550, 010553-010554, MTB/23022/198183 11 010588-010592,010605-010731,010741-010819,010821-010827,010831-010989, 010992-011017, 011019-011097, 012000. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Plaintiffworked on premises owned by Defendant or by a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits Plaintiff worked on the Chevron premises for a very brief period of time, but is unable to admit or deny whether Plaintiff worked on the premises intermittently from 1979-1985. If further answer is required, same is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition." Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Furthermore, without waving said objections none have been found at this time but Defendant's investigation is continuing and Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Ifyou admit the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your MTB/23022/198183 12 admission that Plaintiffwas on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition." Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to BB7309-7335, previously produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all records identifying contractors and/or employees ofcontractors 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: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, nor to any area where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked on Defendant's premises. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010001-010018, 010142-010160 included in document produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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 MTB/23022/198183 13 specifically including any fingerprinting or other records identifying the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, nor to any area where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked on Defendant's premises. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 0010457-0010458 produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to any particular alleged employer of Plaintiff, nor to any area where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked on Defendant's premises. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant will provide a copy of a contract register for the years 1979-1985. Defendant did not maintain copies of the contracts so the type of work performed by the Contractors specifically is unknown as would be the specific employee designated at the contract liaison MTB/23022/198183 14 person. Contractors reflected in this response, ifany, and on the list attached to Mr. Gamble's deposition are independent contractors, and therefore, there would be no employee of Defendant responsible for instructing the contractor regarding the details of the contractor's work. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in scope to the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. However, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010001-010018,010142-010160,012273012338 produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each employee who was responsible for allowing contractor employees access to Defendant's Premises during the years at issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, vague, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we do not presently know the specific person who restricted access to the facility to authorized persons from 1979-1985. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises where Defendant used or applied MTB/23022/198183 15 asbestos containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent the request is intended to encompass all areas ofDefendant's premises, including those where Plaintiff did not work, the request is overly broad and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that somewhere on the approximately 420 Acres which comprised the El Paso Refinery in 1979-1985, there would have been some asbestos containing products in place but based on reasonable inquiry, whether such products were used, applied or removed in the vicinity of where Plaintiff worked is unknown. Defendant denies that any work on, or with, asbestos containing products done from 1979-1985 would have been done without adequate protection. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent the request is intended to encompass all areas of Defendant's premises, including those where Plaintiffdid not work, the request is overly broad and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and document produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. 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 MTB/23022/198183 16 supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant." Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, yes. Mr. Serafm claims to have worked on the Chevron premises on and off during the years 1979 through 1985. During this period of time, asbestos containing insulation was not being applied. Any asbestos containing insulation which was removed, would have been removed by qualified insulation or abatement contractors, the contract for whom would have included that they remove the material from the site. Any insulation material or other refuse picked up by Mr. Serafin would not have been asbestos containing material. Please see the deposition ofRobert Feld given on November 7,2000 in Bustamante. 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous in that the terms "around" and "using" are not defined and are subject to multiple interpretations in the context of this suit. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. MTB/23022/198183 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without waiving the foregoing please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiffworked 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: Defendant objects to this request as over burdensome, multifarious, vague, ambiguous and harassing. The terms "on or around" and "areas" are not defined and are subject to multiple interpretations in the context of this suit, as is th eterm "used". It is virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. MTB/23022/198183 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that during the time period Plaintiff worked at premises, Defendant was aware that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits to being aware of potential asbestos health effects and to have been taking appropriate precautions to prevent those effects from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Defendant was aware ofthe presence ofand/or use ofasbestos containing products on Defendant's Premises during the time period Plaintiff was working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while working on Defendant's premises, which is denied. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP MTB/23022/198183 19 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits awareness of the presence of and/or use ofasbestos containing products at certain locations in the 420 acre El Paso refineiy. Based on reasonable inquiry, whether such products were used, applied or removed in the vicinity of where Plaintiff worked is unknown. If further answer is required, same is denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce any and all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use by you or your employees ofany 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: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to time nor scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the specific areas on any particular premises where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs definition of the terms "you" and "your," and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has not yet located any relevant documents responsive to this request at the El Paso Refinery. MTB/23022/198183 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify any and all warnings ever given by Defendant, ifany, to Plaintiffs regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent to the inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it assumes that a known hazard and danger from asbestos exposure existed where Plaintiff alleges he worked, which is denied. Without waiving the foregoing, we have not yet been able to identify what specific information, if any, was posted or disseminated at Defendant's El Paso Refinery where Plaintiff worked and when he worked there. Whether Plaintiff ever saw or heard any warning on Defendant's premises is unknown. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises. Defendant objects the Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the periods oftime or locations in question. Defendant objects that the request is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the specific areas on any particular premises where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant is unable to identify any such specific warnings at this time. MTB/23022/198183 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings ofany 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: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: If you deny the foregoing, produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery MTB/23022/198183 22 out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we have not yet been able to identify what specific information, if any, was posted or disseminated at Defendant's El Paso Refineiy between 1979 and 1985; however, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe Defendant's safety policy as it relates to the use of asbestos-containing materials at job sites 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 ofasbestos exposure; and b. what instructions, ifany, were given to Defendant's employees on the identification of materials which might or did contain asbestos. ANSWER: Defendant objects that the request is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the specific areas on any particular premises where Plaintiffis alleged to have worked or to the time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked there.. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it assumes the existence of known hazards from asbestos at the Houdry Unit from 1979-1985, which is denied. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, this interrogatory is incapable of being fully and reliably answered because Defendant is a corporation comprised of many individuals, many ofwhom are now retired or deceased and all ofwhose personal MTB/23022/198183 23 knowledge regarding asbestos would be impossible to ascertain. Due to the size of Defendant's business and the number of decades over which it has operated with the attendant personnel changes, it is impossible to determine when or how any one employee first appreciated any potential health hazard of asbestos and provided any warning to another employee. Please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all such safety policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises. Defendant objects the Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the periods oftime or locations in question. Defendant objects that the request is not limited to the premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked nor to the specific areas on any particular premises where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, yes. Mr. Serafin claims to have worked on the Chevron premises on and off during the years 1979 through 1985. During this period of time, asbestos containing insulation was not being applied. Any asbestos containing insulation which was removed, would have been removed by qualified insulation or abatement contractors, the contract for whom would have included that they remove the material from the site. Any insulation material or other refuse picked up by Mr. Serafin would not have been asbestos containing material. Please see the deposition of Robert Feld given on November 7,2000 in the Irma Bustamante, et al v. Owens Corning, et al See Bates numbers CHEV BB 010436-010453,010551,010604-010709,010831010848,010858-010989,011477,011764-011783,012002-012021,012032-012086 produced in Bustamante. (Please note some of the documents produced include Defendants' contractors safety policies.) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. MTB/23022/198183 24 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is argumentative as well as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period or location. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. INTERROGATORY NO. 9. Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Plaintiff"about the hazards ofasbestos and asbestos-containing products? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, vague, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, this interrogatory is incapable ofbeing fully and reliably answered because Defendant is a corporation comprised of any individuals, all of whose personal knowledge regarding asbestos would be impossible to ascertain. Due to the size of Defendant's business and the number of decades over which it has operated with the attendant personnel changes, it is impossible to determine when or how any one employee first appreciated any potential health hazard of asbestos and provided any warning to another employee. We have not yet been able to identify what specific information, if any, was posted or disseminated at Defendant's El Paso Refinery between 1979 to 1985. Whether Plaintiff ever saw or heard any warning on Defendant's premises is unknown. It is not Defendant's present contention that Defendant provided Mr. Serafin any specific warning about asbestos containing materials. MTB/23022/198183 25 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 ofasbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, yes. Mr. Serafin claims to have worked on the Chevron premises on and off during the years 1979 through 1985. During this period of time, asbestos containing insulation was not being applied. Any asbestos containing insulation which was removed, would have been removed by qualified insulation or abatement contractors, the contract for whom would have included that they remove the material from the site. Any insulation material or other refuse picked up by Mr. Serafin would not have been asbestos containing material. Please see the deposition of Robert Feld given on November 7,2000 in the Irma Bustamante, etalv. Owens Corning, et al INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Have you ever provided safety equipment to persons working on Defendant's Premises? Ifso, please list the safety equipment provided and indicate: a. when the equipment was first provided b. to whom the equipment was provided MTB/23022/198183 26 c. under what circumstances the equipment was provided d. Further, identify the person with the most knowledge of your "safety equipment" policies. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly was present Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "You" and "Defendant". Further, Defendant objects to this request as the term "working" is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context of this suit. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, based on information and belief, it was our policy to require that contractors provide their own safety equipment to contractor employees. Specifically, we believe the contracts with contractors required contractors to provide their own safety equipment. However, based on information presently available, it appears that ifa contractor determined he was without a piece of safety equipment, the refinery would provide the contractor with access to whatever equipment it had available. The person with the most current knowledge of the "safety equipment" policies at the El Paso Refinery would likely be a safety supervisor or the contract liaison for any particular contract. 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: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes a duty to provide equipment to employees of independent contractors who were retained to perform various activities as experts in the various fields in which they were retained and as independent contractors, agreed to take all reasonable MTB/23022/198183 27 precautions to protect their own employees. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to the facility on which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the areas on the facility on which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the contractor or contractors for whom Plaintiff claims to have worked or to the periods of time he allegedly worked at any Defendant's facility. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates''; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that contractors were required to provide their own safety equipment to their employees. Otherwise, denied. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State in detail what tests have been conducted with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values ofasbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing asbestos-containing products in any ofyour facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and the results of any such test. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly was present. Defendant obj ects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Your". Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the terms "tests", "working with or around" and "using" are not defined. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. MTB/23022/198183 28 Without waiving the foregoing, testing records located concerning the late 1980's have been provided to Plaintiffs counsel in response to request for production in this, or earlier cases. Please refer to those materials. Defendant's investigation is continuing and Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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 ofasbestos fibers in the air at Defendant's facility? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, and unduly burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we have been unable to determine whether any such measurements or studies were performed at the refinery prior to 1970. INTERROGATORY NO. 14. Please state each time any regulatory agency or other governing body has inspected the Defendant's premises to determine ifhealth 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. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, and unduly burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's MTB/23022/198183 29 premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we have been unable to locate any such material at the El Paso Refinery between 1979 and 1985. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you did not erect containment barriers to prevent emission of asbestos dust at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiffwas present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. MTB/23022/198183 30 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bustamante response Bates No. CHEV BB 010428-010477,010604-010709,010831-010848,010858-010989,012081-012086. (Please note some of the documents produced include information regarding containment barriers used by Defendants' contractors.) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that you did not utilize engineering controls such as isolation or enclosure at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and MTB/23022/198183 31 virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-010477, 010604-010709,010831-010848,0100858-010989,011764-011783,012081-012086, 012002-012021. (Please note some ofthe documents produced include engineering controls used by Defendants' contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. MTB/23022/198183 32 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you did not utilize ventilation or exhaust systems to divert dust at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiffwas present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its MTB/23022/198183 33 benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates'*; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-0100477, 010604-010709,010831-010848,010858-010989,012081-012086. (Please note some of the documents produced include information regarding ventilation or exhaust systems to divert dust at the work sites used by Defendants' contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not utilize dust collection engineering controls to trap airborne asbestos dust at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. MTB/23022/198183 34 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-010477, 010604-010709,010831-010848,010858-010989,012081-012086. (Please note some of the documents produced include dust collection engineering controls to trap airborne asbestos dust at the work sites used by Defendants' contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. 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 ofairborne asbestos fibers at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is MTB/23022/198183 35 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-0100477, 010604-010709,010831-010848,010858-010989,012081-012086. (Pleasenote some of the documents produced include safety policies used by Defendants' contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and MTB/23022/198183 36 documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not evacuate the premises prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such MTB/23022/198183 37 the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-010477, 010604-010709, 010831-010848, 0100858-010989, 012081-012086. (Please note some of the documents produced include safety policies used by Defendants' contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Have you ever warned workers on Defendant's Premises of the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? Ifso, describe in detail the methods ofsuch warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description ofany written warnings relating to the hazards ofasbestos in place at Defendant's Premises and state when the written warnings were installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, and unduly burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this Without waiving the foregoing, yes. Mr. Serafin claims to have worked on the Chevron premises on and off during the years 1979 through 1985. During this period of time, asbestos containing insulation was not being applied. Any asbestos containing insulation which was removed, would have been removed by qualified insulation or abatement contractors, the contract for whom would have MTB/23022/198183 38 included that they remove the material from the site. Any insulation material or other refuse picked up by Mr. Serafin would not have been asbestos containing material. Please see the deposition of Robert Feld given on November 7,2000 in the Irma Bustamante, etalv. Owens Corning, et aL 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. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, and unduly burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, yes, Chevron expected its contractors to take all reasonable precautions, including the use of respiratory protection whenever the contractor deemed it necessary and appropriate. In addition, contractors agreed to abide by all applicable laws and regulations. Defendant required respiratory protection in the 1950's for all workers in areas where known hazards were present, such as low oxygen, Tetraethyl Lead or H2S. Chevron also had respirators or masks available for workers working in dusty environments, such MTB/23022/198183 39 as Coke dust and catalyst; and cartridge respirators for irritating, but not necessarily life threatening substances like ammonia. Defendant further refers Plaintiffs to respirator policies which have been produced in response to request for production. Defendant has been unable to locate earlier written respirator policies because they are discarded when they are replaced to avoid inadvertent use. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not post warning, caution or hazard signs prior to the utilization ofasbestoscontaining materials by your employees at the work sites where your employees were using asbestoscontaining materials, including the work sites where Plaintiffwas present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it MTB/23022/198183 40 is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits. TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-010477, 010604-010709,010831-010848,010858-010989,012081-012086. (Please note some of the documents produced include warnings used by Defendants' contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not issue any warnings to others at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiffwas present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "using". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this Request as calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or MTB/23022/198183 41 predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "using". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition ofthe terms "you" and "your**, and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 010428-010477, 010604-010709,010831-010848,010858-010989,012081-012086. (Please note some of the documents produced include warnings used by Defendants* contractors.). Please also refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. 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. MTB/23022/198183 42 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited to the facility at which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to Plaintiffs employer. As such, this request is overly broad and overly burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing, we have been unable to locate such material for Brown & Olds from 1979-1985. Plesae refer to documents already provided in prior responses. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the use of asbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises created a substantial risk of injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees ofall "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that during the years at issue, Defendant had to power to control Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "control" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal MTB/23022/198183 43 conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to manage the use or condition MTB/23022/198183 44 ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "manage" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "manage" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to direct the use or condition MTB/23022/198183 45 ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "direct** are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "direct" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: MTB/23022/198183 46 Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "superintend" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing. Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refineiy located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "superintend" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: MTB/23022/198183 47 Admit that, during the years at issue. Defendant had the power to restrict the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "restrict" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "restrict" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: MTB/23022/198183 48 Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to regulate the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "regulate" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "regulate" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: MTB/23022/198183 49 Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to govern the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "govern" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates'*; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "govern" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for MTB/23022/198183 50 information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. 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: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "oversee" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and "oversee" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff MTB/23022/198183 51 is inquiring. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to administer the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "power" and "administer" are vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "power" and MTB/23022/198183 52 "administer" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that during the years at issue. Defendant controlled Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "controlled" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: MTB/23022/198183 53 Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "controlled" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant managed the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "managed" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. MTB/23022/198183 54 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the terms "managed" and "condition" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant directed the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "directed" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past MTB/23022/198183 55 agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates'*; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refineiy located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "directed" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant superintended the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "superintended" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant MTB/23022/198183 56 objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "superintended" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant restricted the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "restricted" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, MTB/23022/198183 57 Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "restricted" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant regulated the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term MTB/23022/198183 58 "regulated" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refineiy located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "regulated" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: \ Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant governed the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. MTB/23022/198183 59 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "governed" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and MTB/23022/198183 60 interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that, during the years at issue. Defendant oversaw the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "oversaw" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "oversaw" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the MTB/23022/198183 61 WH 23.01.-0 06 821 request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant administered the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "administered" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity that owned and operated the refinery located at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent that the term "administered" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request MTB/23022/198183 62 unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs work was performed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied MTB/23022/198183 63 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, please see generally contracts with independent contractors provided in response to other discovery. 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 than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects in that this interrogatory calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in scope to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. MTB/23022/198183 64 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, it is Defendant's contention that Defendant did not maintain the right to control the details ofthe work ofcontractor employees during the years at issue. Defendant did maintain the right to inspect progress, receive reports and order the work to start or stop. Defendant and contractors mutually agree at the inception of the job that contract employees would follow Defendant's safety rules as well as their own and appropriate local State and Federal requirements and guidelines. 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: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: MTB/23022/198183 65 If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiff's definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that Plaintiffwas not entirely free to do the work on Defendant's Premises in his own way. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiff's work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. MTB/23022/198183 66 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. 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: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. MTB/23022/198183 67 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing. Defendant admits that asbestos containing MTfi/23022/198183 68 products were in place at certain locations in the approximate420 acres comprising the El Paso refinery from 1979-1985, but denies that any such products were installed, removed or disturbed without adequate protection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, irrelevant and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante.. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that asbestos-containing pipe covering was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any such material was installed at Defendant's El Paso refinery from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. MTB/23022/198183 69 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome, irrelevant and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that asbestos-containing boilers were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any such material was installed at Defendant's el Paso Refinery from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. MTB/23022/198183 70 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, irrelevant and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that asbestos-containing fireproofing was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any such material was installed at Defendant's El Paso refinery from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. MTB/23022/198183 71 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, irrelevant and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that asbestos-containing joint compound was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any such material was installed at Defendant's El Paso refinery from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. MTB/23022/198183 72 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, irrelevant and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that asbestos-containing insulation was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that any such material was installed at Defendant's El Paso refinery from 1979-1985. Otherwise, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, irrelevant and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly MTB/23022/198183 73 worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term MDefendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, Please refer to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that such installation was done under your direction, supervision, and/or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant denies that all installation of insulation was done under Defendant's direction, supervision or control. On those occasions where insulation was installed, it was often installed by independent contractors, and only by independent contractors from 1979-1985. MTB/23022/198183 74 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to contracts and specifications provided in response to request for production no.'s 72, 73 and 82. 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. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the "physical injury" Plaintiff is inquiring about is not defined and is subject to multiple interpretations. MTB/23022/198183 75 Without waiving the foregoing, this interrogatory is incapable of being fully and reliably answered without speculation because it seeks information about scientific inferences which have developed gradually over the years and have been the subject of differing views and interpretations. Defendant is a corporation comprised of many individuals, all of whose personal knowledge regarding asbestos would be impossible to ascertain. Due to the size of Defendant's business and the number ofdecades over which has operated with the attendant personnel changes, it is impossible to determine when or how any one employee first learned that certain forms of asbestos could be, under certain circumstances, associated with certain diseases. Any former employee who may have learned ofan association between asbestos and certain diseases under certain circumstance, such as in mines or in textile mills, does not necessarily mean they became aware at the same of any risk of harm in typical refinery operations. As the risk of harm in refinery operations became known. Defendant took the appropriate steps to protect and educate workers, including the ultimate banning of the use of asbestos-containing insulation materials. Defendant refers to Plaintiff to documents produced by Defendant in response to request for production in this case and in past cases. 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: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law. Defendant further objects that documents responsive to this request are already in Plaintiffs counsel's possession or are in the public domain to which Plaintiff has equal access. Without waiving the foregoing, please see the documents provided Plaintiffs counsel in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Coming, et a/; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2, and see response to Request for Production No. 2 of those documents. See also documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 5567-5583. See also Bates numbers CHEV BB 011098011124, 011137-011144, 011218-011220, 011221-011223, 011717-011725, 011727- MTB/23022/198183 76 011728, 011740, produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admit that you supervised the health and safety procedures implemented by contractors working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE Defendant objects to this request for admission as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the areas within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you supervised the health and safety practices implemented by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for admission as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify which contractor was his employer or what work Plaintiff claims was performed by that contractor. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, MTB/23022/198183 77 consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you did not protect the Plaintifffrom exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects as this request assumes that Plaintiff was at known risk for exposure to asbestos on Defendant's premises, which is denied and it assumes Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on Defendant's premises, which is denied. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendants," and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. If further answer is required, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases ofyour defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition" which is impermissible under Texas law. Further, Defendant specifically objects to this request as it invades the work product privilege embodies in Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Therefore, Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. MTB/23022/198183 78 Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to all documents produced or referenced in Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs discovery. 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? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory insofar as it assumes Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos, and that he suffered from an asbestos related injury, both ofwhich are denied. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant objects to the phrase Substantial contributing factor" as vague and ambiguous and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates",* and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, yes. Mr. Serafin claims to have worked on the Chevron premises on and off during the years 1979 through 1985. During this period oftime, asbestos containing insulation was not being applied. Any asbestos containing insulation which was removed, would have been removed by qualified insulation or abatement contractors, the contract for whom would have included that they remove the material from the site. Any insulation material or other refuse picked up by Mr. Serafin would not have been asbestos containing material. Please see the deposition of Robert Feld given on November 7, 2000 in the Irma Bustamante, etalv. Owens Corning, et aL 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while working at Defendant's premises, and that Plaintiff has an asbestos related injury, both of which denied. Defendant further objects to this request as MTB/23022/198183 79 it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises and that he was exposed to asbestos, which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to medical records and to pleadings, depositions, reports, discovery and documents produced or referred to by Defendant in this case or in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk ofasbestosrelated injury. MTB/23022/198183 80 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on Defendant's premises which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and because the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the specific areas where plaintiff claims to have worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that Defendant did not reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk ofharm posed by the use of asbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on Defendant's premises which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it assumes there was an unreasonable risk of asbestos-related injury from 1979-1985, which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and because the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas where plaintiff claims to have worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant further objects to this request as it assumes an unreasonable risk of MTB/23022/198183 81 harm posed by the use of such products, which is denied. If further answer is required, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffwas exposed to asbestos on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and because the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas where plaintiffclaims to have worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to all documents produced, or referred to, in responses to Plaintiffs discovery. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admit that Defendant's failure to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to Plaintiff was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on Defendant's premises, that plaintiff had an asbestos related injury, that Plaintiff was subjected to a known risk of harm and that Defendant failed to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm, all of which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP MTB/23022/198183 82 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises, that he was exposed to asbestos, that plaintiff has an asbestos related injury, and that Defendant failed to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm, all of which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to all documents produced or referred to in responses to Plaintiff's discovery in this case or in past cases, such as Bustamante. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: If you contend that while at 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. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises where Defendant's employees were working with asbestos containing materials. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly MTB/23022/198183 83 broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring; Plaintiff has not identified any specific in which he was worked on Defendant's premises. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of ail "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to all documents produced or referred to in response to Plaintiff's discovery in this case or in past cases, such as Bustamante. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Ifyou 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 asbestoscontaining materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on Defendant's premises which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Plaintiff's pleadings, testimony, work histoiy, discovery responses, medical records, IME reports and expert testimony, all of which is available for inspection at the offices of Defendants counsel at any mutually convenient time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: MTB/23022/198183 84 Ifyou contend that Plaintiffdoes not suffer from the asbestos-related disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Defendant further objects to this as an impermissible "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, see Plaintiffs medical records, reports of experts, x-rays and documents produced or referred to in Defendant's responses to discoery herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffwas 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: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, over burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it assumes Defendant's employees worked with asbestos in the vicinity of Plaintiff, which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see testimony, work history, discovery responses, medical records and expert testimony, all ofwhich is available for inspection at the offices of Defendants counsel at any mutually convenient time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as calling for material exempted from discovery by the work product MTB/23022/198183 85 privilege and for documents equally available to Plaintiffs. Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, see Plaintiff's pleadings, testimony, work history, discovery responses, medical records and expert testimony, all ofwhich is available for inspection at the offices ofDefendants counsel at any mutually convenient time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy ofDefendant, 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 or 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: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is proprietary and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. MTB/23022/198183 86 Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. 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 ofDefendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) described in the preceding paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is proprietary and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant has not located such documentation in effect at the El Paso refinery from 1979-1985. 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 who received, maintained, reviewed, or disseminated the information contained in such written materials. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Further, Defendant objects to this request as the term "hazardous"is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context of this suit. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing MTB/23022/198183 87 expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and which is equally available to Plaintiffs counsel. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, this interrogatory is incapable of being fully and reliably answered because Defendant is a corporation comprised of many individuals, all of whose personal knowledge regarding asbestos would be impossible to ascertain. Due to the size of Defendant's business and the number of decades over which it has operated with the attendant personnel changes, it is impossible to determine when or how any one employee first received, maintained, reviewed, or disseminated the information contained in such written materials. Without waiving the foregoing, yes, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, etalv. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas and documents produced in Bustamante and Hermosillo. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Produce the written materials referred to in the interrogatory above. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Further, Defendant objects to this request as the term "hazardous"is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context ofthis suit. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or MTB/23022/198183 88 affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, this interrogatory is incapable of being fully and reliably answered because Defendant is a corporation comprised of many individuals, all of whose personal knowledge regarding asbestos would be impossible to ascertain. Due to the size of Defendant's business and the number of decades over which it has operated with the attendant personnel changes, it is impossible to determine when or how any one employee first received, maintained, reviewed, or disseminated the information contained in such written materials. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, etalv. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 5567-5583. See also Bates numbers CHEV BB 011098-011124, 011138-011144, 011218-011220, 011221011223, 011717-011725, 011727-011728, 011740 produced in Bustamante and records produced in Hermosillo. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admit that Plaintifffiled suit against Defendant within two (2) years ofthe date of discovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence of any asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit to deny. If further answer is required, same is denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: Admit that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it calls for a legal conclusion, is argumentative, and assumes Plaintiff has or had an asbestos -related illness, which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. MTB/23022/198183 89 Without waiving the foregoing, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: Admit that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: Admit that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that it no longer installs any asbestos products on its premises. MTB/23022/198183 90 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1972. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1973. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 91 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1974. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1975. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTEV23022/198183 92 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1976. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1977. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 93 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1978. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1979. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing. Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 94 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1980. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific worksite location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1981. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 95 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1982. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1983. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 96 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1984. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1985. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 97 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1986. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1987. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. MTB/23022/198183 98 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1988. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific work site location about which Plaintiff is inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Accordingly, this request calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant admits that at some locations in the refinery there may be undisturbed asbestos containing products in place, but denies that any such material is removed or disturbed in any way without full and complete precaution. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly was present. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you". Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, please see the documents provided Plaintiffs counsel in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the MTB/23022/198183 99 District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2, and see responses to Request for Production Nos. 7,19 and 27 of those documents. Please note that some of the records previously produced may reflect use of products which do not contain asbestos. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: Produce all documents disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such documents. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant further objects as this request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, etalv. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 5567-5583. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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 ofyour plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiffwas present. Defendant also objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is a matter of public record or otherwise available MTB/23022/198183 100 to Plaintiff without imposing a burden on Defendant Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your". Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production in Cause No. 98-133$;MatyHermosillovs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. See also Bates CHEV BB Nos. 011762, 011967-011968, 011690-011692, 011694011704, 011710-011712, 011734, 012026-012031 produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: Produce all safety meeting minutes or other documents, that refer to the dangers of asbestos safety measures to be used in the vicinity of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' MTB/23022/198183 101 Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, etalv: Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 5584-5617. Please refer also to documents produced in cause no. 98-1338, Mary Hermosillo v. Owens Corning, et al and to documents produced herein. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce ail contracts, or other documents that relate to abatement of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents referred to in response to Request No. 8 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. and the documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request No. 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law No. 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335-7359. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335 -7359. See also, Bates numbers CHEVBB 010390,010392-010470,010484-010490,010501-010550, 010553-010554, 010588-010592, 010605-010731, 010741-010819, 010821-010827, 010831-010989,010992-011017,011019-011097,011425,011477,011480,011519011673,011684-011685,011713-011714,011734,011763,011903-011970,011982- MTB/23022/198183 102 011994,012081-012086,012098-012127,012217-012255, produced in Bustamatne. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to the installation of asbestos products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview ail such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, please see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 7 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Herntosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. See also, Bates numbers CHEV BB 0010128-0010141, 010161, 010163-010170,010173-010189,010192-010232,010391,010398- 010403,010423010425, 010436-010453, 010483, 010515-010521,010525-010527, 010536-010545, 010733-010739,010820,011001- 011002,011018,011046-011047,011097,011195011211, 011224-011228, 011338-011382, 011404-011423, 011480-011518, 011589011641,011726, 011728-011733, 011742-011761, 011892-011902, 012025, 012026, 012031, 012087-012097, produced in Bustamante. Please note that some of the records produced may reflect use of products which do not contain asbestos. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. MTB/23022/198183 103 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: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 8,7,9 and 27 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary HermosiUo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. and the documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request No. 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335-7359. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 7335 -7359. See also, Bates numbers CHEV BB 010390, 010392-010470, 010484-010550, 010553-010554, 010588-010592, 010605-010731, 010741-010819, 010821-010827, 010831-010989, 010992-011017, 011019-011097, 011425, 011477,011519-011673, 011684-011685, 011713-011714, 011734, 011763, 011903-011970,011982-011994,012081-012086,0102098-012127,012217-012255, produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. MTB/23022/198183 104 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Produce all documents related to the medical condition of Plaintiff at any time during his work at Defendant's Premises. This request specificallyincludes any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical notes and/or medical records ofany kind, annual physical forms, and employment records relating to Plaintiffs health. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague and insofar as it calls for material exempted from discovery by the work product privilege. Without waiving the foregoing, none other than as reflected below. Medical records in the possession of Defendant or its counsel, have either been supplied by PiaintifFs counsel or are equally accessible to PlaintifFs counsel. Such records, if any, will be available for inspection at the offices ofDefendant's counsel on reasonable request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Produce PlaintifFs entire personnel file from Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant has no "personnel" file on the plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce all documents that reflect the layout ofDefendant's Premises, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as not limited in time nor scope to periods or locations of Plaintiffs alleged work on the premises. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. MTB/23022/198183 105 Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules ofProcedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to the 1956 photograph of the facility and 1956 contour aerial diagram provided in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 12 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: Produce all documents containing any warnings concerning the possibility ofinjury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to documents produced herein and in Hermosillo and Bustamante. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or MTB/23022/198183 106 documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we are unable to locate photographs of known asbestos containing products dated between 1979 and 1985. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Produce all photographs ofwarning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we are unable to locate photographs of warning signs or warning statements dated between 1979 and 1985, which may have been in place at Defendant's premises in the vicinity of asbestos containing products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all documents relating to any individuals claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises, including, but not limited to, workers compensation claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present MTB/23022/198183 107 and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates'1; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request Defendant further objects to this request as calling for information which is proprietary or private to other individuals claiming such injuries, if any. To the extent any such claims resulted in law suits, such records are public and equally available to Plaintiffs. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly was present nor to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked there. Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 19 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. Please also refer to document produced herein and in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: Produce all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills oflading and purchase orders, related to the purchase of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this MTB/23022/198183 108 request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates",* then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 19 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, etal;Jn the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2 and see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB BB 5621-6374, 7360-7420.See also Bates numbers CHEV BB 010391, 010483, 010820,, 011018, 011195-011211, 011224011228, 011338-011382, 011404-011423,011480-011518,011589-011641,011726, 011728-011733,011742-011761,011892-011902, 012025,012026,012031,012087012097 produced in Bustamante. Please note that some of the records produced may reflect use of products which do not contain asbestos as well as products about which information was gathered, but which were not purchased. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "your". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. MTB/23022/198183 109 Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 0010099-0010127, 0010099-0010105, 0010113, 0010064, 0010066, 010269, 010270, 010476-010481, 010570-010575,010578-010580,010582-010587,010740,010783, 011705,012032012079, 012339-012340,12256-12272 produced in Bustamante. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers. CHEV BB 0010114-0010127, 0010099-0010105, 0010113, 0010064, 0010066, 010269, 010270, 010476-010481, 010570-010575,010578-010580,010582-010587,010740,010783,011705,012032012079,012339-012340,12256-12272 produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: Produce all reports, writings (whether published or unpublished) and/or other documentation written, created and/or edited by any ofyour experts that in any way pertain to asbestos and the hazards MTB/23022/198183 110 and/or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your". Without waiving the foregoing, expert reports will be provided in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Standing Order No. 1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: Produce all documents which will be used at the time oftrial, 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: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome Defendant specifically objects to this request as it invades the work product privilege embodies in Rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Therefore, Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules ofCivil Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: Produce documents between Defendant and any ofits worker's compensation carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually MTB/23022/198183 111 impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, we have been unable to locate any such material concerning the El Paso Refinery dated between 1979 and 1985. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Produce a copy ofall regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety of the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 2,7,8, and 9 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, etal; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. and see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 6375-7028. See also Bates numbers CHEV BB 0010026 -0010063, 0010065, 0010096-0010098, 0010106-0010112, 010278-010387,010415-010419, 010436-010453, 010465, 010472-010480, 010482, 010551, 010552, 010555-010587, 010778-010787, 010790-010819,010821-010848, 010852-010857, 011098-011137, 01145-011194, 011212-011217, 011229-011260, 011424, 011426-011477, 011674-011683, 011686-011704,011706-011711, 011713011725,011727,011728,011730-011733,011735-011741,011763,011903-011966, MTB/23022/198183 112 011969-011999, 012001-012002, 012022- 012024, 012081-012086, 012098-012127 produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing, we have been unable to locate any such material concerning the El Paso Refinery dated between 1979 and 1985. 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request No. 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates MTB/23022/198183 113 numbers CHEV BB 7029-7324. Defendant has not located any such document concerning the El Paso Refinery from 1979-1985. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: Produce all documents, organizational 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: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes "work product" as that term is defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. In addition to all previous objections which are incorporated herein, Defendant objects to this request insofar as it calls for the production of material exempted from discovery by the privileges afforded. Without waiving the foregoing, see Bates numbers CHEV BB 0010019-0010025, 010233-010268,011478-011479 produced in Bustamante. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's, net worth, including but not limited to all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 31 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law MTB/23022/198183 114 No. 2. See also Bates numbers CHEV BB 011261-011330 produced in Bustamante. A current report is available on the Internet at www.chevron.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer of ownership ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is proprietary and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken to conduct historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates"; then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94: Produce all indemnity agreements, assignments of liability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or MTB/23022/198183 115 documentation arguably responsive to this request Without waiving the foregoing, please see response to Request No. 7 in Cause No. 98-1338; Mary Hermosillo vs. Owens Corning, et al; In the District Court, El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law No. 2. Please note that some of the records produced may reflect use of products which do not contain asbestos. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located.). Please also refer to contracts produced in Bustamante. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95. Produce all contracts pertaining to work done by contractors at Defendant's facility. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, see documents produced in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Request number 3; in Cause Number 2000-757; Ignacio Serafin, et al v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; In County Court at Law Number 3, El Paso, County, Texas. Specifically Bates numbers CHEV BB 007309 to BB 007335. See also contracts produced herein and in Bustamante in response to other requests. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as additional information is located. 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 MTB/23022/198183 116 to asbestos? RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant has not undertaken historical research to identify and locate all present and past agents or employees of all "merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries or predecessors, and/or affiliates"; and then to contact and interview all such persons for information or documentation arguably responsive to this request. Without waiving the foregoing, please refer to documents produced in respone to other requests herein and in Hermosillo and Bustamante we have not yet been able to identify what specific information, if any, was posted at Defendant's El Paso Refinery between 1979 and 1985. In the event such information is located, we will supplement this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91. Produce all documents and other tangible things relating to the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, over burdensome and vague, and which constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition". Defendant has not undertaken an effort to provide information or documentation which constitutes work product as that term is defined in the Rules of Procedure. Any such material arguably otherwise responsive to this request is withheld. 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 ofcorporations, 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 ofexample and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, MTB/23022/198183 117 resolutions, annual reports, 10K reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits ofyour corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, over burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant will not contest that Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the current name of the entity which owned the El Paso refinery at 6501 Trowbridge in El Paso, Texas from 1979-1985. MTB/23022/198183 118 IGNACIO SERAFIN vs. OWENS-CORNING, ET AL 2000-757 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY This is to certify that on April 20,2001, Defendant, Chevron U.S.A. Inc, served on the Plaintiff the following: Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and Request for Production; Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. State Bar No. 12109400 Michael T. Bridwell State Bar No. 02979600 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 FAX(409)981-1010 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. MTB/23022/198250 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing is being furnished to Plaintiffs' counsel by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other counsel of record by regular mail, on this the 20th day of April, 2001. dno/25076/l 84185