Document x5Y4wekoNjBy3Ygro7XGQd5bJ

JUL.08.99* 07582 IN RE: ALL ASBESTOS-RELATED PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES FILED OR TO BE FILED INJftALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney of record, Russeil \V Budd. Esq., Baron &Budd. The Centrum. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue. Suite 1100. Dallas. Texas 75219 COMES NOW DaimlerChrysler Corporation formerly known as Chrysler Corporation, one of the Defendants m the above-styled and numbered cause (hereinafter 'Chry sler" or "Defendant ^, and submits its Second .Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Chrysler filed a Motion for Protective Order on August 1, 1996, which was supported by the affidavit of Alfred Shamess (dated June 12. 096), and which is hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes as if it was herein restated. I. OBJECTIONS These responses are based upon facts known or believed bv Chrysler at the time of answering these interrogatories and requests for production. Much of the information requested dates back many rears and is difficult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve fhese discovery responses are made pursuant to a reasonable and due diligent investigation and search for the information requested. Chrysler reserves the right to amend these responses if new or additional information becomes available to it. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 1 -- Chrysler further objects to the definitions and instructions prepared by Plaintiffs' counsel in that they are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and are not reasonably limited in scope or time. Plaintiffs' definitions and instructions are overly burdensome, overreaching, and sought merely for purposes of harassment and, as such. Chrysler objects to all those definitions contained within Plaintiffs' discovery to the extent they and Plaintiffs' instructions are inconsistent with the normal and customary usage of words pursuant to the Texas Rules of C;\ll Procedure. Chrysler further objects to Plaintiffs' definitions and instructions to the extent they >eek to expand the duty to object and seek intrusion into the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, witness statement privilege, other federal and state law privileges, party communications privilege and consulting expert privilege contained in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure former Rule 166b and current Rule 195. cmt. 1. Materials to be produced will be produced according to the provisions of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Chrysler objects to Plaintiffs' instructions to the contrary. Chry sler runner objects to Plaintiffs' instructions with regard to claimed objections since these instructions are not required by. nor are consistent with, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Chrysler will comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to its objections and supplementation. II. Chrysler objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production as a whole to 'he extent that there is no definition for the term "asbestos." To Chry sler's knowledge, chrysotiie is the only type of asbestos used in the friction products of vehicles manufactured and distributed by Chrysler. Such information using this genenc term is otherwise irrelevant, overly broad, vague ana ambiguous as well as being outside the scope of permissible discovery and seeking information privileged from discovery under former Rule 166b(3)(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e) and current Rule 192 and DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 2 " ,<b SPO I . 0' )C the attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. To the extent the responses are made with regard to these interrogatories and requests for production, Chry sler will respond with regard to the term "asbestos" referring to the chrysotile material utilized by Chrysler. Because "predecessor" and '`subsidiary" are not defined or specifically identified, it is unclear about which entities Plaintiffs are inquiring. To provide such information would require a nationwide search unlimited by time, location, or type of information, and ;s thus over broad and unduly burdensome. III. The objections set forth herein are hereby applied to all responses set forth in each specific interrogatory and request for production as if fully set forth in eacn particular interrogator, and request for production. [V. To the extent that discoverable items are produced to Plaintiffs, any production for copying and inspection of such items will be made available at a mutually agreeable time between the parties pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. V. Chrysler objects to the number of Interrogatories contained within the Master Interrogaior.es set forth herein. Pursuant to former Rule 168 and current Rule 1 of the Texas Rules of Co-o Procedure. Plaintiffs' Interrogatories require responses well in excess of the interrogatories proMued for under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery is ongoing and Chrysler will supplement as appropriate. DEFENDANT DA1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page J '.ri . y?0 I 0 i VI. These answers to interrogatories do not apply to American Motors Corporation and or American Motors Sales Corporation. VII. Chrysler understands that Plaintiffs allege injuries due to exposure to asbestos from automotive friction materials. Chrysler's responses to these interrogatories specifically address automotive friction materials. Subject to the objections set forth and without waiving same. Chrysler responds as follow s- VIII. INTERROGATORY ANSWERS INTERROGATORY NO. _L: State the name, address, job title, length of time employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of ail other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of each person who has supplied any information used :n answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Chry sler objects to this Interrogatory' because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that the information contained herein has been gathered by numerous employees, agents. representatives and attorneys for Chrysler over a number of years It is outside the scone permissible discovery pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3. Subject to said objections, and wut waiving same, the responses to these interrogatories are corporate responses, prepared wm. me assistance of counsel and based on a variety of sources, including documents ana persona. recollections. The person signing these responses on behalf of Chrysler is a person authorize! by me corporation to subscribe to the responses on its behalf. DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 4 :f r :e> . sp*: : o:oo s-vw INTERROGATORY NO. 2 State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have-ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER Yes. DaimlerChrysler Corporation. 1000 Chrysler Drive. Auburn Hills. Michigan. C.T Corporation. 350 North St. Paul Street. Dallas. Texas. Chrysler is incorporated in Delaware and does have a certificate of authority to do business in Texas. INTERROGATORY NO. 3.: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies a; any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers' if so. identity- the location of the mine(S), the years of its operation, the type : f asbestos mined and w hetr.er y ou sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. ANSWER Chiy sler has never engaged in the mining of raw asbestos Chrysler has no recoru o; any sale of asbestos to anv entitv at anv time. INTERROGATORY NO. _4.i Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers tr.at Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or so id. ANSWER: Chrysler understands that Plaintiffs allege they were exposed to asbestos -rom automotive friction products and Chrysler"s response to this interrogatory is limited to 'h.-se products. Chry sier objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks mformation about products t-tr.er than automotive friction materials, and is over broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information irrelevant to this litigation and seeks information not likely to :eac -o the discovery of adm.ssir.e ev idence. Chrysler manufactured automobiles and light trucks that have included asbestos-containing products including brake linings, clutch plates and transmission bands. Original equipment parts were distributed in new Chrysler, Plymouth. DeSoto and Dodge automobiles. Chrysler currently DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 5 if'; sp- : `-'i': manufactures and sells some light trucks that utilize asbestos-lined brakes due to the absence of alternative materials that meet performance criteria. Chrysler sold and distributed asbestos-containing automotive brake and clutch replacement parts under the Mopar. Cycleweld and/or Cyclebond trade names to independent warehouse distributors and authorized dealers. INTF.RROGATORV NO. 5.: Identity by name each product remaining asbestos fibers tr.at Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any '..me marketed or sold. ANSWER: See Response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 If the answer to one or more of the .as: nree mterrogator.es :s m. me affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: A. As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and'or sold. B. The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling eac.n product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold C. The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketer anchor sold. D The date each of the named products was placed on me market. E. A descnption of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, mcluding the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asresto s put in each product. F. The date each of the products was removed from me market and no longer mm m distributed and the reason or reasons there for. G. The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor H. A descnption of the physical appearance of each of the named products. I. A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 6 J. Identity the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: Chrysler understands that Plaintiffs allege they were exposed to asbestos from automotive friction products, and Chrysler's response to this interrogatory is limited to those products. Chrysler objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is over broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information irrelevant to this litigation and seeks information not hkelv to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it seeks information about :r reacts other than automotive friction materials. Chry sier manufactured automobiles and light trucks that hav e nciuded asbestos-comamma products including brake linings, clutch plates and transmission raises. Original equipment pars were distributed in new Chrysler. Plymouth. DeSoto and Dodge automobiles. Chry sler currently manufactures and sells some light trucks that utilize asbestos linec crakes. Chrysler sold and distributed asbestos-containing automotive rraxe and clutch replacement pans under the Mopar. Cycleweld and/or Cyclebond trade names to independent warehouse distributors and authorized dealers. Brake linings were manufactured at the Trenton Chemicai Plant for use in its automobiles beginning in 1959 and ending in 1988. Brake linings made by Chm t.er contained 50 o com some r> weight and the other 50% of the brake lining contained a 5'' -. matrix. Chrysler ;-b;e.'ts t: providing further information regarding the composition of its crake products because -:..cc. information is a confidential proprietary trade secret. Chrysler stoppeu using asbestos in me mu.xe linings manufactured at its Trenton Chemical facility in 1988. Chrysler never mined, milled, manufactured, imported, processed or marketed raw asbestos fiber or insulating materials. No documents have been located reflecting that Chrysler ever soid raw DEFENDANT DaIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODl'CTIQN - Page * asbestos. Chrysler purchased chrysotile asbestos fiber from Asbestos Corporation, Limited. 830 Mooney Street, Bentford Mines, Quebec. Canada G665 1; Carey Canadian. P.O. Box 190. East Braughton Station PQ Canada GONIHO; Johns-Manville, P.O. Box 5 108. Ken Caryl Ranch. Denver. Colorado 80217. Lake Asbestos. International Fibers. Union Carbide Materials Diusion. A.T. Callas. Alma Products and Boehle Chemical, Inc. For all times pertinent to this litigation, aside from the brake prooucts supplied b> Trenton Chemical. Chip.sier purchased brake products from suppliers. Chios.er does not have specific information regarding the specific composition of the asbestos-containing friction prooucts purchased from outside suppliers. Chrysler is aware that the suppliers r.a.e removed asbestos from most of its brake linings except for ones in which performance specifications cannot be reasonaoly met because a non-asbestos alternative has not been developed that meets performance requirements, such as rear drum brake linings in the Cirrus and Stratus with crake sales code "BRK" from September 19^5 through January 1996; rear drum brake linings in the Ram Van;Wagon 3500 from September 1995 through the 1997 Model Year; rear drum brake linings in the Ram Regular Cab. Chassis Cab ar.d Club Cab 3500 Pickup from September 1997 through the 1999 Model Year: rear drum brake linings in the Ram Quad Cab Pickup from September . ;98 through the 1999 Mode; 'Tear: arc tr.e rear drum brake linings in the Ram Regular Cab. Chassis Cab. Club Cab and Quad Cab 1500 Pickup from September 1999 through the 1999 Model Year Chrysler has purchased asbestos-containing brakes from Abex Corp. (American Brake Block). Bendix Corp. (AlliedSignai), Friction Material Division, Ra\bestos, Raybestos-Manhattan. Johns-Manviile. Nutum, Delphi, Galfer, Valeo Friction Development Products, Kelsey Haves. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODL'CTION - Page S Marshall, Delco-Moraine and Ferodo. Brake parts have been sold by Chrysler under the trade names Mopar. CycleWeld. and CvcleBond. With respect to the physical appearance of Chrysler brake iinings. the brake linings were solid tan or gray slate. Chrysler placed indented identification marks on its brake linings. Each brake lining was marked on its edge with a letter designation indicating the name of the manufacturer of the lining, the chemical composition of the lining (indicated by a combination of letters: "FE" or "EE" i, followed b> numbers indicating the friction level of the lining when normal and when hot. and four digits indicating calendaring for date of manufacture. As a new product, the finished materials are date coded and identified by manufacturer. After the nroduct is used, it eventuailv becomes worn and therefore indistinguishable. The Chrysler logo or emblem was stamped on the brake shoes and brake support plate produced by Chrysler. For identification purposes, color indentation appeared on the lining perpendicular to the friction surface. Chrysler has not located documentation sufficient to allow it to describe markings on parts ootained from outside suppliers. Presently, the light truck brake pads which still contain asbestos are dipped in a green sealer With respect to the intended uses of the named products, brake linings are one component .'fa '.chicle's brake system intended to safely slow or stop vehicles in general, chrysotile asbestos was utilized in friction pans because it provided suitable friction, strength, binding, stability. neat resistance ana other cnaractensttcs required to obtain proper performance of a vehicle's braking s> stem. Chrysler has sold motor vehicles identified as "Chrysler." "Plymouth," "DeSoto" and "Dodge" with original equipment asbestos-containing automotive transmission and clutch pans DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 9 Chrysler service parts, including transmission and clutch parts, have been sold under the trade name Mopar. -o * Chry sler has never manufactured asbestos-containing clutches. However. Chrysler did obtain these parts from outside suppliers. At least since 1966, the suppliers of asbestos-containing automotive clutch parts for Chrysler motor vehicles were the following: Luk. Fichtel & Sachs. Borg & Beck Division of Borg Warner. Long Co.. Lipe-Roliway. and Sneer Division of Dana Corp Replacement pans Chrysler obtained from these suppliers were sole; under the Mopar brand name through authorized dealerships. Chrysler did not manufacture asbestos-containing automotive transmission and clutch pans, but obtained these pans from outside suppliers. Chrysler does not nave information regarding the specific compositions of the asbestos-containing automotive transmission and clutch parts purchased from outside suppliers. Chrysler has not located documentation sufficient to allow it to describe markings on parts obtained from outside suppliers. At least since 1966. the suppliers of asbestos-containing automotive clutch parts for Chry s:er motor vehicles were the following: Bands for automatic transmissions for cars and trucks Borg- Wamer. Crawsfordsville, Indiana. Clutch assemblies for passenger cars: Luk (since circa 'GSOu Germany Clutch assemblies for light and medium trucks: Borg & Beck Division of Borg-A artier. Sterling Heights. Michigan, and Elgin. Illinois. Clutch assemblies for medium trucks: Long Co . Wisconsin. Clutch assemblies for heavy duty-' trucks: Lipe-Rollway. Syracuse. New York, and Spicer Division of Dana Corporation, Auburn. Indiana.; Replacement parts (Clutch Disc Assemblies. Clutch Bands and Clutch Disc Sets) from these suppliers were sold under the Mopar brand names through authorized dealerships. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pa?e 10 All documents presently available to Chrysler that contain information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time at the offices of Clark Hill, P L.C. in Detroit, Michigan. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist9 If so, state: A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further objecting, this interrogatory is overly burdensome. Subject to said objections and without waiving same, performance based specifications are developed for each brake design or each car or truck. It is unduly burdensome and harassing to provide information as to each and every formulation of the numerous models of vehicles manufactured since the 1920s. Because this interrogatory is so overly broad, no specific search can be conducted in response to same without great expense and thus, it has not been determined if responsive documents exist which may be withheld pursuant to the attorney work product, attorney client, and/or consulting expert privileges. Further answering, all documents presently available to Chrysler that contain information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pge H 555706 1.SP0219700 LOO 070799 convenient time at the offices of Clark Hill. P.L.C. in Detroit. Michigan. See documents produced in response to Interrogatory No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of. or exposure to. the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products0 If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products tested and the date of each test. B. The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved a :tn conducting the tests. C. The results of the tests. ANSWER Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 8 to the extent :t :s overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chr> sier further objects to the use of the phrase "potential health hazards" as it is vague, undefined and over broad. Subject to said objections and without waiving same, formulations are developed for eacn brake design for eacn car or truck by either Chrysler's suppliers, or for certain models at certain times, by Chrysler h s unduly burdensome to provide information as to each and every formulation of the numerous maeC or vehicles manufactured since the 1920s. Chrysler understands this interrogatory to pertain to the use arc installation of repiacerr.-ent asbestos-containing fiction products identified in its answers to Interrogatories Nos. 3-6. Except for the brake linings manufactured by Chrysler for the period of time set forth therein. Car-sier purchased the friction products used in its automobiles, including brake linings, from suppliers, DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 11 - ::``o SP'; I fS Chrysler has no specific information regarding any such tests its suppliers may have performed as they would contain information proprietary to the suppliers. Based on corporate records and ongoing investigation, Chrysler has determined at the time these responses were prepared that the following air sampling was conducted. Mr Louis Gendemaiik. a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chry sier Corporation, first sampled air levels in 19~2 and then again in 1975. The 1972 sampling was cone at Chrysler's brake shoe plant testing garage. Two samples of mechanics working on brake drums were taken with a cedu.ese ester niter. The results were 0.25 fibers per cubic centimeter of air oner. the mechanic used a mv-m. and 0.0 fibers per cubic centimeter when compressed air was usee in '. 9~5. Mr. Gendemaiik took air samples at Dodge Truck. Counts were taken with the use of a ceiimose ester filter, and the resuits were 0.0 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. Although data from same exists, no formal report was prepared. In 1971. D.P. Glazier, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chrysler sampled air levels at the Chelsea Proving Grounds while mechanics worked on crakes. The results were less than 1 fiber per cubic centimeter for an eight hour time-weighed average. In 1983. D.N James, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chrysler sampled air levels at the A m.usor Assembly Plant while two mechanics performed brake replacements on the tractor per.:on a tractor trailer 'The results were less than i fiber per cubic centimeter. In 1986. D.N James performed air sampling at the Chelsea Proving Grounds while mechanics performed brake build-..cand inspection operations. The results were less than .1 fiber per cubic centimeter. On two different occasions in 1989. G.W. Fischer, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chrysler. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pa?e 13 sampled air levels at the Chelsea Proving Grounds in the vehicle test department. The results of both samples were less than .03. All of the documents presently available to Chrysler that contain information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time at the offices of Clark Hill. P.L.C. in Detroit. Michigan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9.: Do any documents, including but r.ot .mited to written memcrurua. specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written mate-.a.s of any kind or cr.arac.er relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory Nc o row exist0 If so. state A. A description of each such document. B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession c: -cucr document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER See Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8. INTERROG ATORY NO. 10.: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary compar/es make any design changes or modifications as a result of those tests described in responses *: Interrogatory No. 8 If the answer is affirmative, state: A The trade names of the products changed. B The nature of the changes made and the date of suer, .'.ranges or modifications C. The name, address, and job title of each person resttorsibie for having cause.: change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: Asbestos content of some brakes have changed as scientific knowledge governmental regulations have developed. However, no design changes or modifications were mace to brake linings or friction products manufactured by Chrysler as a result of tests described n DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQL ESTS FOR PRODICTION - Pa?e 14 Response to Interrogatory No. 8. With regard to friction products purchased from suppliers, design changes, if any, would have resulted from decisions made by those suppliers. INTER ROGATORY NO. 11 : After releasing the products listed :n Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products'1 If the "answer is affirmative,'' state: A. The names of the products tested and the dates of tests. B The name, address, and job tale of each person wr.o mnoucted those tests. C. The results of those tests. D. Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market E. The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: Chry sler objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, rmsleacing and irrelevant, ar.c .: ts unclear what Plaintiffs mean by "materials, such as asbestos." Chry sier periodically performeu un sampling tests from 1972 through 1989 as set forth in response to interrogatory No. 8. The results of these air sampling tests showed that the mechanics were not exposed to excessive .eveis of asbestos dust or an increased risk of disease from asbestos in the proper handling of Chry tier s friction products. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Do any documents, including written memoranda, specificat.crs, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kina or character, relating to me potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. o now exist0 If so, state A. The name of each product. B. A description of each document and how it relates to each product. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI ESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page 15 C. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: Chrysler objects.to Interrogatory No. 12 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chry sler further objects to the use of the phrase "potential health hazard" as it is vague, over broad and undefined and seeks irrelevant information :o the extent it seeks information relating to conditions Plaintiffs do not allege Subject to said enactions and without waiving same, with regard to an;, documents responsive to this interrogator-. see Chrysler's answer to Interrogator.' No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 8 or 111 If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The names of the products changed or modified. B. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having made a change or modification. C The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted :.n mch change or modification ANSWER. No design changes or modifications were made to hr axe linings or friction products manufacture.: r> Chrysler as a result of tests described in Response to interrogatory No. 8 a oh regard to friction products purchased from suppliers, design changes, .f any. would nave re;a.tea from decisions made by those suppliers. The results of these air sampling tests showed mat me mechanics were not exposed to excessive levels of asbestos dust or an increased nsk of disease from asbestos in the proper handling of Chrysler's friction products. DEFENDANT DAl.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 14.: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No 6. If so, state: A. The names of each relevant product. B. The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. C. A description of the printed material other than the a anting statement. D. The method used to distribute the warning to persons hkely to use the product. E. The date each warning was first issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. F. The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having draftee or issued the warning. G. The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. H. The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, ne^ the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory' No. 14 as being overly broad, ambiguous, unduiy burdensome, and not reasonably limited in scope or in time. Furthermore, Interrogatory No Mis v ague and faiis to set forth with reasonable particularity those items to be produced as required under Rule 196. 1ibi and is therefore outside the scope of permissible discovery. Further objecting, this interrogator. :s sought for the purposes of harassment and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discov ery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing, Chrysler states that automotive brake and dutch parts have been accompanied by cautionary language. The first Chrysler service manual containing such language concerning brake parts was printed in 1973. as follows: DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI F.STS FOR PRODUCTION - Page r CAUTION: When resurfacing or refacing brake shoes follow manufacturer recommendations for proper use of their equipment. Whatever equipment is used, ensure that proper ventilation is providedto remove asbestos dust, which can be detrimental to health. The following language first appeared in Chrvsler's 1984 service manuals regarding brake service: CAUTION: When servicing brake assemblies or components, do not create dust by sanding, grinding or by cleaning brake pans with a dry brush or with compressed air. A water dampened c:oth should be used. Many brake components contain asbestos fibers which can become airborne if dust is created during ser. :ce operations. Breathing dust which contains asbestos fibers can cause serious bodily harm. The following language appeared in Chrvsler's 1984 ser.ice manual regarding clutch assemblies: CAUTION: When servicing clutch assemblies or components do NOT create dust by sanding or by cleaning clutch pans with a dry brush or with compressed air. (A water dampened cloth should be used.) The dust is created during service operations. Breathing dust containing "Asbestos Fibers" may cause serious bodily harm. Such language has generally appeared in service manuals since 1984. Based upon the best information available, from 1973 to the present, the cartons for Chrysler's asbestos-containing replacement pans sold through its Mopar Division contained one or DANGER CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD CAUTION DEFENDANT DAl.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 18 "s v?'' nco THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS. AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS MAY RESULT IN SERIOUS BODILY HARM. CAUTION AVOID CREATING OR BREATHING DUST. CONTAINS HAZARDOL S SUBSTANCES WHICH MAY CAUSE LING INJURY Caution: Contains asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust mav cause serious bodily harm. When servicing this brake lining or any component related to it or located near it, prevent asbestos dust from becoming airborne by vacuuming the assembly with an industrial type vacuum cleaner equipped with a high efficiency filter system and by washing the assembly with an appropriate brake parts washer if necessary. Never remove dust or dirt from this assembly by blowing with compressed air. INTERROGATORY NO. 15.: Before 1970. had you received notice that any indiv.dua; or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Dallas Count;.. Texas, is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and or sold by your company or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries before '. if so. state: A. The name and address of each claimant. B. The date of notice of each claim. C. A description of the claim. D. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. DEFENDANT DaIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page 19 :;: `To S?C :: o , E. The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. F. The style'and court number of each claim. G. The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 15 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chrysler further objects to this interrogatory as it :s unimy burdensome and the answer to this interrogatory would require a phy swai rev lew of virtually ev ery writing retained by Chrysler which would be impossible. Further omening, this interrogator, see.vs to review Chrysler's attorneys' work product and trial preparation outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Procedure. Subject to the foregoing objection(s) and without waiving same. Chrysler has found no record of a product liability lawsuit or claim before WO alleging injury from exposure to asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 16.. Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and or soid by companies other than your own? If the answer ,s affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER Chry sier objects to Interrogatory No. 16 for the reason that it ;s overly broad, v ague a.nu ambiguous and is 'unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information %r.-ch is outside the sc ::u : permissible discovery. Subject to the foregoing objection!s) and without waiving same. Chry ;.er generally sold new automobiles and replacement parts through authorized dealerships. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pa?e 20 Chrysler distributed asbestos-containing automotive brake and dutch replacement parts under the Mopar, Cycleweld and/or Cyclebond trade names through authorized, independent warehouse distributors. All documents presently available to Chrysler that contain information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time at the offices of Clark Hill. P.L.C. in Detroit. Michigan. INTERROGATORY NO. 17.. Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidta.-es have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in me States of Alabama. Florica. Mississippi. Oregon. Washington. Georgia. Tennessee. Texas and irgmial' If so, state: A. The name and address of each such distributor or sa.es representatives. B The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. C. What products were distributed, marketed, or sold and ;n what years. ANSWER: See answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 16. T. :s act possible for Chrysler identify every different dealership and distributor that has existed m the states of Alabama. F or da. Mississippi. Oregon. Washington, Georgia. Tennessee. Texas ana Virginia since 1925 INTERROGATORY NO. 18,: L ist each employee i including or.a- phy sicians and/or by gierasv who nas acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any ume curing the past -W . ears, nciuding, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, ar.a the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowieuge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER: Chry sler objects to Interrogatory No. 18 to the extent it is unreasonably broad in time and seeks irrelevant information outside the scope of permissible discovery. Further objecting, the DEFENDANT D.AlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 21 term "medical advisory capacity" is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, Chrysler has no documents or summaries that identify all the individuals that worked for Chrysler throughout its history specifically responsee to this request. Based on available information. Chrysler has been able to identify- the following managers and directors of its medical and hygiene areas: Dr. Martin Bruten - deceased (former Medicai Director); Dr. Marian iosz - deceased (former Medical Director); Dr. Robert McIntosh - deceased former Medical Director: Dr. Orlo Robinson (former Medical Director); Dr. Robert Branu: former Medical Director and Director of Occupational Health & Safety); Dr. Robert Moms (present Lead Physician); J.E. Thomas 'present Director of Occupational Health Sc Safety); Neil McCa.ium (former Director Occupational Health Sc Safety); Gerald Sattelmeier (former Manager ;: industrial Hygiene i; TV .Dam Wan (present Manager of Industrial Hygiene). INTERROGATORY NO. 19.: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pampmeus. memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that wouic ndicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings'? If so. state: A The name of each such publication. B. The date of publication and the names of the author ar.c publisher ( if any i C. The date received by Defendant, if known. D. The name, job title, and address of each person w r.o currently has possession :f each publication and its present location. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 19 to the extent t ,s overly broad, vag_e mu ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope 0; permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOCESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page " Chrysler has had and does have books and other written material that relate to asbestos. Chrysler cannot provide the information requested for ever.' book, report, pamphlet or other document it has ever had regarding asbestos. Chrysler has numerous facilities throughout the United States and it is not possible to retrieve and identify every document reiated to this subject. Chr\ sier does not have a centralized library or library system that would contain documents responsive to this request. Chr>sler was generally aware of and received documents available to the professional community, including its industrial hygiene professionals, regarc -g ..snestos and the p-mer.m. hazards associated with excessive exposure to asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 20.: Has Defendant or any of its subsic.ary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association mat published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and or sellers of asbestos products? If so. state A. The name and address of each such association or organization. B. The dates during which Defendant or any of its subs.c.anes or predecessors a ere members. C The names and dates of any publications, minutes. r moors published, written, w disseminated by any of the named associations or : r.amzations. D. '.Vhether any of those publications are still in our ; - e soon, and if so- 1. A description of the publications, inducing me cate. 2. The current location of such publications 3. The custodian of such publications. 4. The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 2i <?'.: 0 n "0"^ ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 20 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chrysler further objects to this interrogator, as it is unduly burdensome and oppressive, because the answer to this interrogatory would require a physical review of virtually every writing ever received by any employee of the Chrysler which would be impossible to do. Further objecting, th.s .r.terrogatory seeks to review Chnsier's attorney's work product and trial preparation and is outside me scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Without -waiving these objections. Chrysler or its employees. ?r noth, have throughout the years had memberships in a variety of organizations and at a variety of times. It would be impossible to identify each organization or group. However, the following is a list of some of the organizations or groups responsive to this request: the .American Industrial Hygienists Association (AIMS*: me Friction Material Standard Institute; the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, the .American Academy of Industrial Hygienists; the Michigan Industrial Hygiene Society; National Safety Council: the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association; the Battery Council International, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the Engineering Society of Detroit; the Adhesive and Seaiant Council; American Society for Testing Materials; .American College of Toxicology. Michigan section of the Society Toxicology 3oard of Certified Safety Professionals, and the American. Chemical Society. Ger.eraCy. Chrysier or its employees may have received documents disseminated from these groups ana organizations. DEFENDANT D.Al.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 21. Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was injjperation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER: Chry sler objects to Interrogatory No. 21 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further objecting, this interrogatory seeks irrelevant information regarding the assembly of automobiles which have taken piace since '.925 and is. therefore, unduly burdensome and overly broad. Subiect to the foregoing objections and without waiving same. Chry sler manufactured a portion of the brake linings utilized in Chrysler automobiles, from 1959 to 1988 at Trenton Chemical Plant in Michigan. Asbestos was not used in the manufacture of brake linings after 1988 at this facility. All other friction materials sold by Chrysler in its automobiles or as replacement pans were manufactured by the various suppliers previously identified. Over the years, Chrysler assembled its friction products at its Toledo Machining Plant. Detroit Forge and Axle Plant and Kokomo Transmission Plant. Chry sier's Mopar Division 'would nave packaged replacement friction products at its Warren. Michigan. Marysville. Michigan or Centerline. Michigan facilities. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos0 If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. DEFENDANT D.AIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page IS B. The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. C. The date-the materials were prepared. D. The media used to disseminate the sales materials ANSWER. Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 22 as being o'.eriy broad, ambiguous. unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited in scope or in time. Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 22 :s vague and fails to set forth with reasonable particularity those items :o oe produced as required under Rule 196 and ;s therefore outside the scope of permissible u:=co\ery. Further objecting, this interrogator, is sought for the purposes of harassment and iceks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, for the period from 1930 through 1985. Chrysler created sales materials for the replacement parts referenced previously. Chrysler :s m possession of some printed materials promoting Chrysler's Cyclebond brake linings, from the '.950s, and Mopar performance pans from the 1980s. All documents presently available to Chry sler that contain nformation responsive to this interrogator, wiil be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time at the offices of Clark Hill, P.L.C. in Detroit, Michigan. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Have any written or printed matenals or instructions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained0 If so, state: A. The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page 26 ;;;"v B. The name, address and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present location. C. The dates of. distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. D. The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 23 to the extent it seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery. This interrogatory is sought for purposes of harassment and ieeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence ir.d is unlimited in time or scope. Further objecting, this interrogatory is overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably limited in scope or in time. Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 23 is vague and fails to set forth with reasonable particularity those items to be produced as required under Rule !% b . Subject to the foregoing, Chrysler states that automotive brake and clutch pans have seen accompanied by cautionary language on packaging and in manuals at various times. The first Cray sier service manual containing such language concerning brake pans was printed m 1^"? as follows: CAUTION: When resurfacing or refacing brake shoes follow manufacturing recommendations for proper use of their equipment. Whatever equipment is used, ensure that proper ventilation is provided to remove asbestos dust, which can be detrimental to health. The following language first appeared in Chrysier's 1984 ser-ice manuals regarding brake service: CAUTION: When servicing brake assemblies or components, do not create dust by sanding, grinding or by cleaning brake parts with a dry DEFENDANT DAl.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLESTS FOR PRODLCTtQN - Pa?e 2' brush or with compressed air. A water dampened cloth should be used. Many brake components contain asbestos fibers which can become airborne if dust is created during service operations. Breathing dust which contains asbestos fibers can cause serious bodily harm. The following language appeared in Chrvsler's 1984 service manual regarding clutch assemblies: CAUTION: When servicing clutch assemblies or components do NOT create dust by sanding or by cleaning clutch pars with a dry brush or with compressed air. (A water dampened cloth should be used.) The dust is created during service operations. Breathing dust containing "Asbestos Fibers" may cause senous oodiiy harm. Such language has generally appeared in service manuals since 1984. Based upon the best information available, from 1973 to the present, the canons for Chr- sier asbestos-containing replacement pans contained one of the following: DANGER CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD CAUTION THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS. AVOID CREATING DUST. BREATHING ASBESTOS MAY RESULT IN SERIOUS BODILY HARM CAUTION AVOID CREATING OR BREATHING DUST. CONTAINS HAZARDOUS DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page 28 SUBSTANCES WHICH MAY CAUSE LUNG INJURY Caution: Contains asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm. When servicing this brake lining or any component related to it or located near it, prevent asbestos dust from becoming airborne by racuuming the assembly with an industrial type vacuum cleaner equipped with a high efficiency filter system and ?y washing the assembly with an appropriate brake parts washer if necessary. Never remove dust or dirt from this assembly by blowing wm compressed air. INTERROGATORY NO. 24 Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the clams made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance earner, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each polio;, i If properly answered, this interrogatory need not be supplemented as :o the remaining amount : coverage). ANSWER: Chn sler is presently self-insured and has been self-insured subsequent to 1972. Chr- s:er was insured by the Hartford Insurance Company from 1926 through 1972. There were separate policies for each year. INTERROGATORY NO. 25 .: As to the disease asbestosis. state A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that ;W. disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers ?-y numans. B. How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. C. Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or of asbestos exposure. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION . Page C9 D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E. Whether-anv_such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, ur.cuiy burdensome ana -.ague Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses ana me credible medical literature on all such questions of human diseases, ir.eir causes, and diagnoses Subject to the foregoing objections and without waning same. Chry oe: offers the following The scientific and medical body of knowledge which relates to the answer to mm Interrogatory has undergone continual evolution from the early par : finis century until the present day. One common fact which resonates throughout this evolutionary petted is that asbestos diseases or conditions of ail types are dose-response conditions, meaning me nigher the dose of asnestes breathed into the lungs, the greater chance of the development disease. Another ccmmcn characteristic of asbestos-related conditions or diseases is the long latency between exposure ana m.e manifestation of the condition or disease. It is impossible to expiam :r understand the occurence of asbestos-related conditions or diseases in human beings without a m.orcugh understanding :: : tr. dose-response and latency. Again. Chrysler defers to the reasoned _ augment and opinions :: : medical and scientific expert witnesses on all such questions of human aiseases. their causes, arm diagnoses DEFENDANT DAl.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page SO By keeping abreast of the governmental, medical and scientific bodies of knowledge through the years. Chrysler generally became aware that exposures to high levels of asbestos dust in its pure -v*. . or almost pure forms in manufacturing factories in England, day-in and day-out for a working lifetime, could cause a condition known as asbestosis. The primary stud} which signaled the general awareness of asbestosis in American workers was the 1938 study tw Dr. Dreessen. L~ S Public Health Bulletin No. 241. which reported some asbestosis in asbestos textile factory workers ar.d concluded that if asbestos dust concentrations in the air breathed are \ept below 5 million partic es per cubic foot, new cases of asbestosis would not appear. End product users, such as insulators and-or pipe coherers, a ere not felt to be at risk of asbestos-related conditions as reported by major studies until the ea::> to mid-1960s. From .946 until approximately the early 1970s, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists published the Threshold Limit Value ("TLV"') for exposure to asbestos dust at 5 million particles per cubic foot. This level of exposure was adopted by the united States Department of Labor under the Walsh-Healev Public Contracts Act of 1952. It was not until the mid to later ' s that there were sufficient studies to illustrate that job site "bystanders" were also at risk for ar.cus asbestos-related diseases or conditions. C or- sier learned that mere exposure to asbestos, without mme. does not cause ascest.w s Chr sier has generally learned that inhalation of certain types and c comities of asbestos fibers . rr certain periods of time is associated with an increased risk of ascestosis for some people . r.e specifics of exactly how or when Chrysler personnel acquired such knowledge is not certain, but n is believed to have been by the 1940s. DEFENDANT DA1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND RF.OL ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 31 *<>' : :*; ; /> v'D'co The specifics of exactly how Chrysler personnel acquired such knowledge or awareness is not reasonably ascertainable, but it is probable that it came from reading government publications or other public documents, reports, studies or journals. Chrysler obtained this level of knowledge based upon what was published or reasonably available at that time. With regard to the Plaintiffs in this litigation, proper handling of automotive friction materials does not create an increased level of asbestosis. The cm sampling tests performed b> Chr\ sier. as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 8. showed mat mechanics proper!) ssm.g Chry sier's friction products were not exposed to excessive levels of asbestos dust or an increased nsK of disease from asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 26. As to the disease lung cancer, state' A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers b> humans. B. How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease ar.u ,;s relationship to asbestos exposure. C Who within the company or its subsidiary or preaecessor first discovered ?r recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary ?r predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. E Whether any such information is still maintained r- Defendants or its surs;d.,,r:es or predecessors in a written form. F. Who is the custodian of such information. G. The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOL ESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page SC ANSWER: Chrysler objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague. Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses and the credible medical literature on all such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Chrysler offers the following: The scientific and medical body of knowledge which relates to the answer to this Interrogatory has undergone continual evolution from the early part of this century' until the present ua\. One common fact which resonates throughout this evolutionary rer.od is that asbestos diseases or conditions of ail types are dose-response conditions, meaning the higher the dose of asbestos breathed into the lungs, the greater chance of the development of disease. .Another common characteristic of asbestos-related conditions or diseases is the long latency between exposure and the manifestation of the condition or disease. It is impossible to explain or understand the occurrence of asbestos-related conditions or diseases in human beings without a thorough understanding of both dose-response and latency. Again. Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical and scientific expert witnesses on all such questions of human diseases, their causes, ana diagnoses. By keeping abreast of the governmental, medical and scientific bodies of knowledge '..trough the ; ears. Chrysler generally became aware that exposures to high levels of asbestos dust m :ts pure or almost pure forms in manufacturing factories in England, day-m and day-out for a working lifetime, could cause a condition known as asbestosis. The primary study which signaled the general awareness of asbestosis in .American workers was the 1938 study by Dr. Dreessen. L'.S. Public Health Bulletin No. 241. which reported some asbestosis in asbestos textile factory workers and DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI F.STS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 33 concluded chat if asbestos dust concentrations in the air breathed are kept below 5 million panicles per cubic foot, new cases of asbestosis would not appear. End product users, such as insulators and/or pipe coverers. were not felt to be at risk of asbestos-related conditions as reported by major studies until the early to mid-1960s. From 1946 until approximately the early 1970s, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists published the Threshold Limit Value ("TLV") for exposure to asbestos dust at 5 million particles per cubic foot. This level of exposure was adopted be the Vnited States Department of Labor 'under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of 1952. It was not until the mid to later !9~0s that there were sufficient studies to illustrate that job site "bystanders" were also at risk for various asbestos-related diseases or conditions. Chrysler disagrees with the premise of this Interrogatory because whether lung cancer can be caused by the inhalation of asbestos is a complicated medical question that depends on such factors as level of exposure, fiber type, smoking history, individual risk factors and more. Cigarette smoking is far and away the leading cause of lung cancer in the world. Without properly accounting for the role of cigarette smoking in any individual's case, it is impossible to assess the lung cancer risk from other exposures. Such is the case with asbestos. Chrysler believes, through the expertise of its medicai and scientific consultants, that the credible governmental, medical and scientific literature to date confirms that lung cancer cannot be attributed to asoestos exposure in the absence of underlying asbestosis. Again, the TLV of 5 million particles per cubic foot of air which was the standard from the 1940s through the 1960s was designed to prevent asbestos disease; therefore, lung cancer was not expected to occur from asbestos exposure if these guidelines were followed. Further. those persons believed to be at risk in the sequence of asbestosis and lung cancer were those in the DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOL ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page J4 <?: ; ;i :o row? textile and mining industries, not end product users, until sometime in the mid to late 1960s. Through its expert medical and scientific consultants, Chrysler has become aware of a study by Sir Richard Doll, published in or around 1955 which found an elevated incidence of lung cancer in workers who were certified by the British government with asbestosis. As this study was disseminated and as it became accepted as authoritative, it became known to stand for the proposition that asbestos exposure contributed to cause lung cancer oniy ;n cases where indiv lduais also developed underlying asbestosis. Chrysler likely would have learned of this study at or around the time it was published in the medical literature. With regard to the Plaintiffs in this litigation, proper handling of automotive friction materials does not create an increased level of lung cancer. The air sampling tests performed by Chrysler, as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 8, showed that mechanics properly using Chrysler's friction products were not exposed to excessive levels of asbestos dust or an increased risk of disease from asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 27 As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state. A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor learned such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. B How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. C. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. D. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD A MENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 35 ' * 5po :.9'onx o'l-w E. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. F. Who isffi'e custodian of such information. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague. Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses and the credible medical literature on all such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Chry Ter offers the following The scientific and medical body of knowledge which re.ates to the answer to th.s Interrogatory has undergone continual evolution from the early par. ;f tn.s century until the present day. One common fact which resonates throughout this evolutionary period is that asbestos diseases or conditions of all types are dose-response conditions, meaning the higher the dose of asbestos breathed into the lungs, the greater chance of the development of disease. Another common characteristic of asbestos-related conditions or diseases is the long latency between exposure ana the manifestation of the condition or disease. It is impossible to explain or understand the occurence of asbestos-related conditions or diseases in human beings without a thorough understanding :r"',oth dose-response and latency. Again, Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions a as medical and scientific expert witnesses on all such questions of human diseases, their causes, ar.u diagnoses. By keeping abreast of the governmental, medical and scientific oodies of knowledge mrougn the years. Chrysler generally became aware that exposures to high levels of asbestos dust in its pure or almost pure forms in manufacturing factories in England, day-m and dav-out for a working lifetime, could cause a condition known as asbestosis. The primary study which signaled the general DEFENDANT DAIV1LERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION . Page 36 ; ;f`:o . spc : o' awareness of asbestosis in .American workers was the 1938 studv bv Dr. Dreessen. L'.S. Public Health Bulletin No. 241, which reported some asbestosis in asbestos textile factory workers and concluded that if asbestos dust concentrations in the air breathed are kept below 5 million panicles per cubic foot, new cases of asbestosis would not appear. End product users, such as insulators anchor pipe coverers. '.'ere not felt to be at risk of asbestos-related conditions as reported by major studies until the ear:;- to mid-1960s. From '. 4o until approximately the early 19~0s. the American Conference of Governmental Ir.uustria, Hygienists published the Threshold Limit Value ("TLV"1 tor exposure to asbestos dust at 5 rr.LLor. particles per cubic foot. This level of exposure was adopted by the L'nited States Depanment of Labor under the Walsh-Heaiev Public Contracts Act of 1952. It was not .until the mid to later I ^"0s that there were sufficient studies to illustrate that job site "bystanders" '.cere also at nsk for carious asbestos-related diseases or conditions. The use of the term "pleural disease" is misleading. The pleural reactions to asbestos can be divided into pleural plaques, pleural effusion and diffuse pleural thickening. Chrysler bene'-es. through the expertise of its medical and scientific consultants, that pleural plaques do not cause symptoms, such as reduced iung function. The only pleural reaction iexcluding mesothelioma m:ct is covered :n Interrogatory No. 281. which causes symptoms is, in certain instances, diffuse pleura: thickening. It was not until the late 1940s before references m the literature clearly linked usees::; exposure to pleural plaques and pleural thickening. Chrysler would have oecome aware of the resu.ts of these studies at or around the time they were published in the medical literature. The evidence at the present time suggests to Chrysler that isolated pleural plaques m the absence of asbestosis or diffuse pleural thickening are not associated with clinically detectable DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI F.STS FOR PRODUCTION - Page r ;r ^ <?; : 4-0 o1 restrictive impairment. Pleural reactions as described herein are not believed to be a precursor to any other conditions, such as lung cancer or mesothelioma. The specifics of exactly how Chrysler personnel acquired such knowledge or awareness is not reasonably ascertainable, but it is probable that it came from reading government publications or other public documents, reports, studies or journals. Chrysler obtained this level of knowledge based upon what was published or reasonably available at that time With regard to the Plaintiffs in this litigation, proper r.ar.m.r.g of automotive frtct.cr. materials dees not create an increased level of pleural thickening. The a.r sampling tests perrorm.ee by Chrysler, as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 8, showed 'ha: mechanics proper:;- asmg Chrysler's friction products were not exposed to excessive levels of asrestos dust or an increases risk of disease from asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 28.: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: A. The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first leamea r_cr. disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by mamans. B The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesetneiioma was causea m inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. C How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease ir.d '".a: .t was caused by exposure to asbestos. D Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered .r recognized the adverse consequences or effects of ascestos exposure. E. What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES VND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pa?e 38 G. Who is the custodian of such information. H. Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for mesothelioma. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague. Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses and the credible medical literature on all such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same. Chry -tier offers the followingThe scientific and medical body of knowledge which rentes to the answer to -ms Interrogator, has undergone continual evolution from the early part :f tms century until the present day. One common fact which resonates throughout this evolutionary rertcu :s that asbestos u,ceases or conditions of all types are dose-response conditions, meaning the .richer the dose of asoestos breathed into the lungs, the greater chance of the development of disease. Another common characteristic of asbestos-related conditions or diseases is the long latency between exposure arm me manifestation of the condition or disease. It is impossible to explain or understand the occurence of asbestos-related conditions or diseases in human beings without a thorough understanding of bom dose-response and latency. By keeping abreast of the governmental, medical and scientific bodies of knowledge mr mgr. :he years. Chry sler generally became aware that exposures to high lever of asbestos dust :n :ts rare or almost pure forms in manufacturing factories in England, da'--.r or.o day-out for a wor.\:.rg lifetime, could cause a condition known as asbestosis. The primary stucy which signaled the general awareness of asbestosis in .American workers was the 1938 study by Dr. Dreessen. If S Public Health Bulletin No. 241, which reported some asbestosis in asbestos textile factory workers and DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOL ESTS FOR PRODLCTION - Page }9 concluded that it'asbestos dust concentrations in the air breathed are kept below 5 million panicles per cubic toot, new cases of asbestosis would not appear. End product users, such as insulators and/or pipe coverers. were not felt to be at risk of asbestos-related conditions as reported by major studies until the early to mid-1960s. From 1946 until approximately the early 1970s. the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists published the Threshold Limit Value ("TLV") for exposure to asbestos dust at 5 million particles per cubic foot. This level of exposure was adopted by the f mted States Department cf Labor under the Waisn-Healey Public Contracts Act of 1952. It was not until the mid to later 19"s that there were sufficient studies to illustrate that job site "bystanders ' sere also at risk for .arious asbestos-reiated diseases or conditions. The specifics of how or when Chrysler personnel learned of the link between exposure to certain types of asbestos and mesothelioma is uncertain, but would have probably been at or arn.ru the time the Wagner, et al. study was published in the medical literature. The disease mesothelioma was first linked to asbestos exposure in I960 in a group of case reports published b> Dr J C Wagner, et ai. This study involved individuals with suspected exposure to a particular fiber-tvpe m asbestos, crocidolite. which was mined and processed in the Northwestern Cape Province of Soum Africa. The acuity of other types of asbestos, such as chrysotiie. to cause mesothelioma has see:: me suoject of much debate, and reported associations between mesothelioma ana exposures to arm.: me asbestos did not come until years after Dr. Wagner's study. There is sail a credible ana significant school of thought which supports the conclusion that chrysotiie asbestos does not cause mesothelioma. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES \ND REOLESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pasje 40 Chrysler is aware, through its medical experts and scientific consultants, that some treatment courses have been successful in "curing" certain individual cases of mesothelioma under the circumstances of those cases. Chrysler is also aware, through its medical experts and scientific consultants, that research is ongoing regarding the efficacy of certain drug, chemical, radiation and surgical treatment courses which may have worked to cure mesothelioma in individual cases and may prove valuable as more than palliative treatments for the disease. Of course. Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses on all such questions of human disease, their causes, diagnosis and treatment. With regard to the Plaintiffs in this litigation, proper handling of automotive friction materials does not create an increased level of mesothelioma. The air sampling tests performed by Chrysler, as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 8. showed that mechanics properly using Chrysler's friction products were not exposed to excessive levels of asbestos dust or an increased risk of disease from asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 29.: As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer or lymphatic cancer, state: A. The ty pe of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such diseases were caused by mnaiation of asbestos fibers by humans. B. What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor become aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers0 C. The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. D. Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adv erse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. DEFENDANT D.AIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES VND REOCESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 41 E. What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. F. WTietherrany such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. G. Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague. Chrysler defers to the reasoned judgment and opinions of its medical expert witnesses and the credible medical literature on all such questions of human diseases, their causes, and diagnoses Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same. Chrysler offers the following' Chrysler has never learned that any of these malignancies are caused by asbestos exposure Whether or not asbestos is a risk factor for gastrointestinal, laryngeal and pharyngeal carcinoma is a subject of much debate among the medical professionals to date Chrysler, through its medical and scientific consultants, is unaware of any studies proving that asbestos causes, or is a risk factor for. lymphatic cancer. Chry sler understands that gastro-intestinal cancer includes coio-rectal and gastric carcinoma Due to confounding factors such as diet, ethnic origin, place of residence (urban v rurai . ana uncertainty of diagnosis, the relationship between asbestos exposure and these tumors remains ur.conv incir.g. Cary sier has never learned that asbestos exposure causes lary r.geal or pharyngeal cancer f oe few studies which some expens who regularly testify for plaintiffs' lawyers rely upon to snow asbestos exposure is associated with these tumors are flawed and do not meet the cnterta set forth in Mernil Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W 2d 706 (Tex. 1997). These tumors are virtually never seen in non-smokers. Additionally, alcohol consumption is a known risk factor If DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 42 alcohol and tobacco are properly taken into account, Chrysler believes, as Liddell reported in his review of all the studies available up to 1990, that there is insufficient evidence to confirm an association between asbestos and laryngeal cancer. Mesothelioma - The specifics of how or w hen Chrysler personnel learned of the link between exposure to certain types of asbestos and mesothelioma is uncertain, but would have probable been at or around the time the Wagner, et al. study was published in the medical literature. The disease mesothelioma was first linked to asbestos exposure in 1960 in a group of case repons puolisrea Dr. J. C. Wagner, et al. This study involved individuals with suspected exposure to a particular f.bertype of asbestos, orocidolite, which was mined and processed in the Northwestern Cape Province of South Africa. The ability of other types of asbestos, such as chrysotile. to cause mesothelioma has been the subject of much debate, and reported associations between mesothelioma and exposures to amosite asbestos did not come until years after Dr. Wagner's study. There is still a credible mo significant school of thought which supports the conclusion that chrysotile asbestos does not cause mesothelioma. Lung cancer - Chrysler disagrees with the premise of this Interrogatory because whether lung cancer can be caused by the inhalation of asbestos is a complicated medical question that depends on such factors as level of exposure, fiber type, smoking history, individual risk factors and mere Cigarette smoking is far and away the leading cause of lung cancer in '.he world. Without proper.;, accounting for the role of cigarette smoking in any individual's case. :t is impossible to assess me lung cancer risk from other exposures. Such is the case with asbestos. Chrysler believes, through the expertise of its medical and scientific consultants, that the credible governmental, medical and scientific literature to date confirms that lung cancer cannot be attributed to asbestos exposure in the DEFENDANT DA1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED A.NSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 43 absence of underlying asbestosis. Again, the TLV of 5 million particles per cubic foot of air which was the standard from the 1940s through the 1960s was designed to prevent asbestos disease: therefore, lung cancer was not expected to occur from asbestos exposure if these guidelines were followed. Further, those persons believed to be at risk in the sequence of asbestosis and lung cancer were those in the textile and mining industries, not end product users, until sometime in the mid to late 1960s. The first significant medical study that linked asbestos exposure to lung cancer was published in the mid-1950s by Sir Richard Doll. Chrysler likely wcuid ha\e learned of the stud;. a; or around the time it was published in the medical literature. With regard to the Plaintiffs in this litigation, proper handling of automotive friction materials does not create an increased level of gastro-intestinal cancer. The air sampling tests performed by Chrysler, as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 8. showed that mechanics properly using Gary sler's friction products were not exposed to excessive levels of asbestos dust or an increased risk of disease from asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 30.: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactures or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposes to them'7 If the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on wmcn answer is based. ANSWER. Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 30 for the reason that :t is overly broad. ' agt.e ir.u ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information which is outside the sc :ce f permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chry sler further objects mat tms interrogatory is irrelevant as it sets forth a test which is not the best for product safety un.cer an;. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODCCTIQN - Page 44 legal standard. Without waiving these objections, every product or material can have some risk or hazard associated with its use. The air sampling tests conducted by Chrysler, as identified in Interrogatory No. 8. showed that mechanics who properly handled automotive friction products were not exposed to excessive asbestos fibers or an increased risk of asbestos related disease. During the braking process, brake products are subject to substantial change because of extreme temperatures, abrasion and shearing forces. The asbestos in an automobile friction product is transferred r.to an inert. non-pathogemc mineral, forsterite. INTERROGATORY NO. 31.: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging w'mcn Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asoestos material or products, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical descnption of each type of package, ana providing a descnption of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory' No. 31 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague mu is unlimited in reasonable time or scope and therefore is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to said objections and without waiving same. Chrysler has sold automobiles with friction materials containing asbestos already installed m me vehicles Vehicles are generally not shipped in packages. Replacement pans sold by Chrysler that contained friction materials containing asbestos vere shipped in cardboard cartons of various sizes. Chry sler does not now nave available to it ah o: me information requested for all packaging it used through the years. However, by way of exampie. according to a service pans processing and packaging specification, dated August 8, 1995. the size of a cardboard container for brake lining shoe and front wheel disc was 5.25" x 1.5" x A~5" In DEFENDANT D.AIMLERCHRY SLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page -15 addition to warnings set forth previously, the packaging would have contained the Chrysler's logo which is a five pointed star (known as the "Pentastar"). At times, parts were sold under the trade names of Mopar. Cycle Weld, and CycleBond. Also, see Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 23. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products0 If so, state, as to each such agreement. A The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. B The trade name affixed to those products. C. The periods of time covered by each such agreement D. The v olume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. E. The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to the term "rebranding" to the extent that :t :S '.ague, ambiguous. m.d confusing. Chrysler does not know what is meant by the term "rebranding agreements." Subiee: vthis objection, and without waiving same. Chrysler has not located any agreements regarmm rebranding of asbestos-containing automotive brake and or clutch pars manufactured, sold. or distributed by others. Chrysler states that it purchased from its suppliers brake and ciutcr. paru. some of wmen were incorporated into Chrysler vehicles as original ecuipment and some :T ..mm were soid as replacement pans for Chrysler vehicles. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant solo :r distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and me ultimate disposal of such materials. DEFENDANT D-XIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI F.STS FOR PRODLCTIQN - Page 46 S?'' ! ; -;o ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 33 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery. Chrysler further objects to Interrogatory No. 33 for the reason that it seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 192.3. Further objecting, this interrogatory is unclear, vague, ambiguous, overly broad as :t is not limited in time, scope or area, and unduly burdensome, -subject to said objections. Chrysler states as follows: Brakes Over the years, Chrysler purchased brakes containing asbestos. Chrysler :$ aware that Delphi and AlliedSignal supplied asbestos-containing brakes tor ,;s light truck models curing the 1990s. However, historically Chrysler is aware of no records that would allow it to identity- the year or time period the brakes were purchased or the quantities of brakes purchased. Information identifying some of this information can be found in documents referenced in Chrysler's Answer to Interrogatory No. 6. Further answering, Chrysler has purchased brakes from: Abex Corporation. Bendix AlliedSignal); Raybestos. Raybestos-Manhattan, Johns-Manv.ile. Nutum. Delphi. Gu.fer. Valeo Friction Development Products. Kelsey Hayes. Marshall. Ferode and Delco-Moraine Clutches: Over the years. Chrysler purchased clutches containing asbestos. Chry sier :s aw me of no records that would allow it to identify the year or time period me mutches were purchase: the quantities of clutches purchased. Information identity mg some of m,:s information car. be f;ur.u m documents referenced in Chrysler's .Answer to Interrogatory No. b. Funner answering. Chry sier has purchased clutches from: Luck. Fichte! & Sachs. Borg & Beck Div ision of Borg Warner. Long Company, Lipe-Rollwav, and Spicer Division of Dana Corporation. Automatic Transmission Bands: Borg Warner. DEFENDANT DAl.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOt.ESTS FOR PRODLCTION - Pat>e 4* nZ'. 9" 2 h ` 20 ONj-qq Chrvsotile: Over the years. Chrysler purchased chrysotile asbestos for manufacturing brake iininas from: Asbestos Corporation. Limited 830 Mooney Street Bentford Mines Quebec. Canada G6651 Carey Canadian P 0. Box 190 East Braughton Station PQ Canada GONIHO .'onns-Manville P 0. Box 5108 Taiedo. Ohio K.en Cary 1 Ranch Denver. Colorado 80217 Lake Asbestos of Quebec. Ltd. P.O. Box 608 Black Lake Quebec. Canada International Fibers Onion Carbide Materials DiMSion A.T Callas Alma Products 3oenie Chemical. Inc. INTERROGATORY NO. 34 .: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor current:;, have possession of any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: A. The name, address, and Job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pa?e 48 B. A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to the term '"rebranding" to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, and confusing. Chry sler does not know what is meant by the term "rebranding agreements." Subject to this objection, and without waiving same. Chrysler has been unable to locate any documents which are responsive to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 35,: Prior to 1968. did any person fie a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers0 If so. provide: A. A list of the claims, including each claimant's name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the claim. B. The disease alleged in each such claim. C. A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. D. The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 35 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous and irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as required b> Rule 192.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the information sought is irrelevant and immaterial for the reasons that whether or not workers' compensation claims nave been filed has no relevance to the end user of Chrysler" s product. This interrogatory is further objectionable as being burdensome, and is sought merely for purposes of harassment. Chrysler does not organize workers' compensation claims by injuries claimed. Therefore, it would be extreme!;, burdensome, onerous and harassing to compel Chrysler to review' every single workers' DEFENDANT DA1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOt. ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 49 compensation claim ever filed. Workers' compensation records are available at various facilities maintained by Chrysler. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, depanmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards or asbestos products? If so. for each such set of minutes, state: A. The dates of each such meeting. B. The general subject maner discussed at each meeting. C. Who was in attendance at each meeting. D. Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. E. By whom the minutes were taken and put into finai format. F. Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 36 as being overly broad, vague and failing to set forth with particularity those items to be identified and is therefore outside the scope of permissible discovery. Chry sler further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, this interrogator} seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is 'unlimited in scope or time and is overly burdensome Further, this interrogator- wouid require Chrysler to go through old minutes, reports and other documents concerning meetings or board of directors or corporate committees or sub-committees since i 925 which would be extremely burdensome, time consuming and expensive. Subject to said objections and without waiving same. Chrysler is not aware of minutes of corporate meetings responsive to this request. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 50 * 5":*) npo ::oi >3 INTERROGATORY NO. 37.: Do you or any of your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos7 If so. state: A. As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. B. The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and or selling each of those products. C The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed, and or sold. D. The date each of the named products was piaced on the market. E A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. F. A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. G. A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. H. Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 37 for the reason that it seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 3 Further objecting, this interrogatory is unclear, vague, ambiguous, overly broad as it is not limited in time, scope or area, and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, see Chrysler's responses to Nos. 6 and 14. INTERROGATORY NO. 38,: State whether you or any of your predecessors and-or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, snipping documents, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similar nature relating to me mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distnbution of asbestos products. If so, state: A. The location of such documents. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 51 Aj ONj-QQ B. The name and address of the custodian of the documents. C. The format in which the documents are kept. Li, hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. D. in what form the documents can be accessed, li. by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER. Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 38 to the extent that it is overly broad, burdensome and not reasonably limited in time or scope. Further, this interrogators is vague and ambiguous and fails to set forth with particularity those items to be identified arm .s m.erefore outside the score of permissible discovery. Further objecting, this interrogatory is sought merely for purposes of harassment and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discover.' of admissible evidence as well as information privileged from discover. . Subject to said objections and without waiving same. Chrysler never mined, manufactured. or marketed raw asbestos fiber. No documents have been located reflecting that Chrysler ever sold or distributed raw asbestos. Historically, Chrysler has maintained documents in various departments in both hard copy and computer record, depending on the department, year and document. INTERROGATORY NO. 39 May you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial tf any of these cases1 If so. list: A. The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be cai.ec B A summary of the testimony expected to be given by eacn such witness. C. List any and all previous times that the named witnesses nave either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, sty ie of the case, case number, date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking me deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. DEFENDANT D.A1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQLESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 39 for the reason that it seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, Chrysler has not determined who it will call as a witness at any particular tnal. Chrysler will identify those persons with knowledge of relevant facts as required by former Rule 166(b)(2)(d) and current Rule 192.3(c) with regard to each specific case pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether such witnesses are "company representatives" is a legai question to be determines on a case-bv-case basis. INTERROGATORY NO. 40ji Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business wn.cn manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos'' If so. for each such entity, state: A. Full and correct name; B. Principal place of business; C. State of incorporation; D Date of acquisition by Defendant; E. Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business do one State of Texas. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is unduly burdensome mu mat the burden it imposes is grossly incommensurate with the results retainable. Chrysie: oas purchased, reorganized, or merged into any company involved m the manufacture of raw ascesms or insulation products. However, Chrysler purchased Briggs Manufacturing Company m the 105-s Furthermore, through stock transactions, Chrysler has had a controlling interest in Lambarghim ana Maserati. In the 1980s, Chrysler acquired American Motors Corporation. Further, through various DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PL AINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOIESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 53 transactions at times during the period from 1930 to 1985, Chry sler has had an interest in foreign auto makers, whose vehicles also may have been equipped with asbestos-containing automome brake ancL'or clutch pans. Some of the vehicles made by foreign makers in which Chrysler had an interest may have been placed in the stream of commerce in the United States. Chrysler purchased an interest in the Rootes Group of Great Britain in the early 1960s. u hich increased to 83% by the time Chrysler sold its holdings in 1978 i Rootes was at that time know as Chrysler United Kingdom). Some Rootes cars were imported by Cary s.er into the United States anu soid throughout Chrysler dealers, including the Sunbeam Tiger and the Plymouth Cricket. Gary sier purchased a 25% interest in Simca of France :n i95 8. trained controlling .merest (690/o) by 1964. which increased to 77% by the time Chrysler sold all ,:s Simca holdings in 'U"8 (Simca was at that time known as Chrysler France). Some Simca cars were imported by Chrysler into the United States beginning in 1958 and sold through Chrysler sealers at that time. Chrysler acquired a 15% interest in Mitsubishi of Japan in 19':, with further acquisitions of 10% in 19"2 and another 10% in 1973. Chrysler sold its Mitsubishi holdings in 1991. Duma 're period through 1985. some Mitsubishi 'vehicles were imported by Chry s.er into the United States soid through Chry sler dealers, including Dodge and Plymouth Coit anc C.M Vista models. Ply rr.eutr. Arrow. Plymouth Conquest, and Dodge Ram 50 compact pickup trucks In 1998. Chry sler merged with Daimler Benz A. G. INTERROGATORY NO. 41 Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reuc.n. or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in wfucn :t was sold0 If not. with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user DEFENDANT DA1MLERCHRVSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 54 ANSWER: Chrysler generally expected its automobiles to reach the first and original consumer, the new car owner, without substantial change to any component part thereof As initially supplied, the brake products are solid, firm and non-friable and as such do not release respirable asbestos fibers. During the braking process, brake products are subject to substantial change because of extreme temperatures, abrasion and shearing forces. The asbestos in an automobile friction product is then transformed into an inert, non-pathogemc mineral, forsterite. INTERROGATORY NO. 42t: For each asbestos-containing predict identified in response to Interrogatory No 6. identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, oeipers. pipefitters, ueiuers. machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, snipweights and riggers, etc u any of Defendant's asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Chry sler objects to Interrogatory No. 42 for the reason that .: is overly broad, -.ague anc ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information wnich is outside the scone :u permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same. Chrysler expected mechanics to periodically replace brakes and ci.itcr.es that mac contain asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 43 .: Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-coma.n.r.g products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, can such producs :e generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air" A. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufacturer, distributed, or used by your company, then specify me afferent products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. B. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in whicn a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to and year involved. DEFENDANT DAIV1LERCHRVSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 55 ANSWER: Yes. generally brakes and clutches can be applied without releasing asbestos fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 44 Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: Yes. friction products wear out and it is expected they would be "removed." "replaced." but not "stripped" when worn. INTERROGATORY NO. 45.: Before 19^0. did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor's' e'.er arrange for my laoor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or xnycne from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to rr.a.<e ?r take dust levei counts1 If so. state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures ANSWER Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No, 45 to the extent :t ,s overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is 'unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chry sier further objects to the use of the phrase "potential health hazards" as it is vague, undefined and over broad. Subject to said objections and without waiving same, formulations are developed for each brake design for eacn car or truck by either Chrysler's suppliers, or for certain models at certain times, by Chrysler it is ..r.duly burdensome to provide information as to each and ever, femv--ation of the numerous mode is or vehicles manufactured since the 1920s. Chrysler understands this interrogatory to pertain to the use and .nstaiiauon of replacement asbestos-containing friction products identified in its answers to Interrogatories Nos. 3-6. Except tor the brake linings manufactured by Chrysler for the period of time set forth above. Crap, sier purchased the friction products used in its automobiles, including brake linings, from suppliers DEFENDANT DAlMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLE5TS FOR PRODUCTION - p^e 5o Chrysler has no specific information regarding any such tests its suppliers may have performed as they would contain information proprietary to the suppliers. Based on corporate records and ongoing investigation. Chry sler has determined at the time these responses were prepared that the following air sampling was conducted. Mr. Louis Gendemaiik, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chry sler Corporation, first sampled air levels in 1972 and then again in 1975. The 1972 sampling was done at Chrvsler's brake shoe plant testing garage. Two samples of mechanics working on brake drams were taken with a cellulose ester tiller. The results were 0.25 fibers per cubic centimeter of air when the mechanic used a brash and 0.0 fibers per cubic centimeter when compressed air was used. In 1975. Mr. Gendemaiik took air samples at Dodge Truck. Counts were taken with the use of a cellulose ester filter, and the results were 0.0 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. Although data from same exists, no formal report was prepared. In 1971, D P. Glazier, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chrysler sampled air levels at the Chelsea Proving Grounds while mechanics worked on brakes. The results were less than .1 fiber per cubic centimeter for an eight hour time-weighed average. In 1983, D.N. James, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chrysler sampled air levels at the Windsor Assembly Plant while two mechanics performed brake replacements on the tractor portion of a tractor trailer. The results were less than .1 fiber per cubic centimeter. In 1986, D N. James performed air sampling at the Chelsea Proving Grounds while mechanics performed brake build-up and inspection operations. The results were less than , 1 fiber per cubic centimeter. On two occasions in 1989, G.W Fischer, a member of the Industrial Hygiene Department of Chrysler, sampled air DEFENDANT DaIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 5_ levels at the Chelsea Proving Grounds in the vehicle test department. The results of both samples were less than .02. All of the documents presently available to Chrysler that contain information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time at the offices of Clark Hill. P.L.C. in Detroit, Michigan. INTERROG ATORY NO. 46.: If Defendant performed or hac performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take0 ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 46 to the extent :t is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, see responses to Nos. 8. 10, 13 and 45 INTERROGATORY NO. 47.: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessor!si ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating me inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those "exposed to the use of your company's products If so. give the following: A. Name of the person or firm conducting such studies: 3 The date the studies began and the date they were completed; C .Any publication or other written dissemination of the results of the studies: D. The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos oust fibers; ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 47 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous as "exposed to the use of your company's product" is unclear and is unlimited in scope DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page ?8 ':~'f> ppo:. <*': : v or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further objecting, this interrogatory is overly burdensome and harassing. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, other than those studies previously identified, no. INTERROGATORY NO, 48,: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have jour predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department0 If so. give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: A. The amount of time and money expended each >ear on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products1 B. What percentage of gross sales did your companv or its predecessortsi spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos0 C. State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. .ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 48 as being overlv broad, vague, ambiguous arc: burdensome and is not reasonably limited in scope or time. It is vague and fails to set forth with particularity those items to be identified and is. therefore, outside the scope of permissible discov cry Further objecting, this interrogatory seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculates: to .eeu to the discovery of admissible evidence. Chrysler further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous as to the term "research department." Subject to said objections ir.u without waiving same: Chrysler historically, and currently, conducts activities that may :e considered research, regarding the safety, design and performance of its automobiles ar.u tr.eir component parts. These activities have been conducted by and through a variety of departments '.rut have changed in structure and function over the years. Some of these activities would relate to the performance of friction products. Due to the vagueness of this interrogatory, Chrysler cannot be DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQI FSTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 59 ; spo- ;: ; go.ototw more specific with this response. Chrysler does not have a research department which deals solely with the health affects of asbestos. INTERROGATORY NO. 49.: Does your company have, or has it ever had. or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department0 Tf so. state: A. The year such Medical Department was established; B. Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; C. The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by ; ear. beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, ana the last known address and phone number of each; D. State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 49 as being overly broad, vague, ambiguous and burdensome and is not reasonably limited in scope or time. Chrysler further objects to InterrogatorNo. 49 to the extent it is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks irrelevant information outside the scope of permissible discovery. Subject to said objection and without waiving same. Chrysler nus had medical departments at a variety of its facilities over the y ears. INTERROGATORY NO. 50t: Did your company or its predecessor s i or subsidiaries ever r ace any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging, if so. ider.'.Ty the product! s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER Based upon the best information available, from 19~3 ;o the present, the carters ter Chrysler asbestos-containing replacement parts contained one of the following; DANGER CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page t>0 f) spo : oi y: AVOID CREATING DUST CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD CAUTION THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS. AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS MAY RESULT IN SERIOUS BODILY HARM. CAUTION AVOID CREATING OR BREATHING DUST. CONTAIN'S HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WHICH MAY CAUSE LUNG INJURY Caution: Contains asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm. When servicing this brake lining or any component related to it or located near it. prevent asbestos dust from becoming airborne by 'acuuming the assembly with an industrial type vacuum cleaner equipped with a high efficiency niter system ana by washing the assembly with an appropriate brake pans washer if necessary. Never remove dust or din from this assembly by blowing with compressed air. INTERROGATORY NO. 51ji Did your company or its predecessor! si or subsidiaries ever stamc or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestoscontaining products0 If so. please state the name brand names of such products, a description of sucn stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND RF.OI.ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page ol ANSWER: Chrysler placed identification marks on its brake linings with two-letter designations indicating the name of the manufacturer of the lining, a combination of letters or numbers indicating the chemical composition as well as numbers indicating the friction level of the lining and digits indicating date of manufacture. The Chrysler logo is a pendant star, -a hich emblem is stamped on its brake shoes and brake support plates. INTERROGATORY NO. 52. Has your company, or your preaecessons) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had de% e.eped. a product which cm not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-conrammg products0 If so. state the date that such research plan was begun arm Aren such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 52 to the extent that ,t .s overly broad, burdensome and is not reasonably limited in time or scope. It is further vague, ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to mm objections and without waiving same, products that do not contain asbestos have different performance characteristics than asbestos-containing products and specific products are desmnei to match those characteristics. Therefore, non-asbestos-containing products are not true "substitutet " Further. Chrysler is aware that its suppliers of brake linings and other friction pr:d,,cm developed products to replace their asbestos -containing products. An asbestos-free product 'xas t'rst available ;n the market in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Chryrer. v.ih Its suppliers, exam..red alternatives to asbestos lined brakes in the 1980s. This program mestigated a wide . artery : alternatives to identify those that satisfied the safety and performance requirements of eacn mode, vehicle sold by Chrysler. At all times. Chrysler has complied with government safety and performance regulations in developing its brake specifications. Beginning in the mid-1980s, arm DEFEND VNT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page od ':;" 'b ' S?V I 0 1 *, '9Q continuing to today, Chrysler did sell automobiles that contained brakes without asbestos brake linings when those linings satisfied the applicable performance requirements. INTERROGATORY NO. S3 Did your company or its predecessor!si or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce0 If so, state: A. All details of such recall; B. The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determines: that it should take mace. C The dates of recall; D. The purpose for the recall. ANSWER Chrysler has not recalled any of its products from me market as a result of asbestosrelated health concerns. INTERROGATORY NO. 54.: Before 1970. did you ever manufacture or sell products whicn i:o not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products1 If m. state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. ANSWER Chry sler objects to Interrogatory No. 54 to the extent mat :s overly broad, burdensome and is not reasonably limited in time or scope. It is further vague, amnguous. and seeks .rrelev am information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to m:u objections and without waiving same, products that do not remain asbestos have a.tterer.t performance characteristics than asbestos-containing products anc specific products are ces.gneu to match those characteristics. Therefore, non-asbestos-containmg products are not true 'substitutes See response to No. 52. DEFENDANT D.Al.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES VND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 63 INTERROGATORY NO. 55 Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not "performed as intended9'" Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER. No. but non-asbestos friction products do not have the same performance characteristics as asbestos friction products. See responses and objections to Nos. 52 and 54. INTERROGATORY NO. 56 Did your company or its predecessor s i or subsidiaries e% er make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust1 I f so. give the date of such surveys and state who. or what entity, was -esponsible for completion .of such survey s. ANSWER Chrysier objects to Interrogatory No. 56 for the reason mat ;t is overly broad and r.ot limited to use oy automotive mechanics as alleged by Plaintiffs. Chrysler further objects to Interrogatory No. 56 to the extent it is vague, ambiguous and is unlimited m scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further objecting, this interrogatory is overly burdensome Subject to these objections, in addition to those dust studies previously identified, asbestos dust studies have been performed at facilities where Chrysler manufactured or assembled asbestoscontaining friction products. See Chrysler's response to Nos. 5 and '. INTERROGATORY NO. 57,: As to either the threshold limit vames or maximum aiiowarie concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by me American Conference Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: A. The year in which Defendant or any predecessor s i or subsidiaries were first adv iseu of such limits or concentrations; B. The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice: C. How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOt ESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 64 ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 57 as being overly broad, burdensome and not reasonably limited in time or-scope. Chrysler further objects to Interrogatory' No. 57 for the reason that it seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery. Further objecting, this interrogatory seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections. Chrysler understands that the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (ACG1H) defines threshold limit value-time weighted average iTLV-TWA) as the eight hour time weighted average concentration of a substance to wmch nearly ail workers may be repeatedly exposed (day after dayi without adverse effect. Chrysler was aware of published threshold limit values, or their equivalent, which would have been published at v arious times by the ACGIH or by OSHA. Chrysler is unable to state the name of any single employee who received such information. INTERROGATORY NO. 58.: Were the threshold lima values or maximum allowable concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory' No. 57 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone1 ANSWER Chrysler objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information that is irrelevant to the extent that Chrysler's current day interpretation of the threshold limit values of maximum allowable concentrations provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists does not refect Chrysler's interpretation at the time they were releasee Subject to said objection, and without waiving same. Plaintiff should consult the documentation prepared by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists for this information. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 05 INTERROGATORY NO. 59 State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 59 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Further objecting, this interrogator) is overly burdensome and harassing. Subject to said objection and without waiving same. >ee Chrysler's response to No. 8 regarding all known air sampling INTERROGATORY NO. 60,: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate wuh specificity the expert witnesses that you will cail. including: A. The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness: B. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; C. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; D. Whether any person identified in subparagraph .a' above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report. E. Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; F. Describe in detail the education and work history of. and identify any becks, treatises, articles, published and unpublished repor.s. studies or other scholarly wer.\$ authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph iai above. Alternatively, in lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum uae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 60 to the extent it is overly broad, vague and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery under former Rule 166b(2)(e) and current DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page 6b SPC Z Z' '.0 Rule 195. Each case involves specific facts and allegations. Therefore, a case-specific designation may be made by Chrysler. Subject to said objections and without waiving same, the following persons may give expert testimony at the time of trial: John F. Craighead, M.D. 1845 Four Winds Road Ferrisburgh. Vermont 05456 802/425-3480 Edward Gaensier, M.D. Boston University Medical Center 80 East Concord Street Boston, Massachusetts 02118 617.638-4077 Gerald Kerbv, M.D. University of Kansas Medical Center 3901 Rainbow Kansas City. Kansas 66160-7381 913/588-5000 Dorsett Smith. M.D. 4301 Colby, Suite 201 Everett. Washington 92203 206/259-5171 Philip T. Cagle, M.D. Pathology Department. Room 220-B Baylor College of Medicine One Baylor Plaza Houston, Texas 77030-34) 1 713/798-3671 Francis Wr. Weir, Ph.D. 17350 Tomall Parkway Suite 330, W'illowbrook Place 111 Houston, Texas 77064 713/893-4003 DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOIESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page o" :-o s?o cioo Graham W. Gibbs. Ph.D. 14-4122 Range Road 265 Spruce Grove Alberta^Canada T7Y 1 E7 403/987-2883' John Bass, M:D. 2451 Fillinghain Street Tenth Floor. Suite FI Mobile. Alabama 36617 334/471-7888 Robert M. Ross. M.D. 17030 Nanes. Suite 210 Houston. Texas 77090 281 440-8851 John R. Holcomb. M.D. 4410 Medical Drive, Suite 440 San .Antonio, Texas 78229-3755 210/692-9400 Hans Weill. M.D. Tulane University School of Medicine POO Perdido Street. Second Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504/588-5265 Victor L. Roggli, M.D. Duke University Medical Center Department of Pathology Box 3712 Durham, North Carolina 27710 919/286-0411 Drs. Craighead, Gaensler. Reichman. Kerbv. Smith. Cagie. Weir. Bass, Ross. Ho.comc. Weill and Roggli. if called to testify, are expected to provide testimony concerning the anatom;, mu function of the respiratory and circulatory systems: examinations conducted and opinions regarding tissue samples of decedents; the symptomatology, disease process and diagnosis of asbestosts and DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES \ND REOt ESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page 68 :e 21 n'O.0PC cancer of the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity: the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber and the effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos in the development and manifestation of diseases of the respiratory system; the methods of diagnosis and means of establishing the differential diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases with non-asbestos related diseases: the incidence of lung cancer in the general population and those individuals exposed to asbestos; cigarette smoking and its effects on the lungs; the difference between impairment and disability: the effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; the lack of relationship between pieura. piaques and development of any cancer; the history, evolution and knowledge of asbestos-reiaieu aiseases; and the evolution of the medical communities' awareness of the increased risks for an asbestos-related disease :n tne cases of prolonged exposure. Drs. Craighead and Roggli, if called to testify, may testify regarding their review ; f Plaintiff s and or Decedent's medical records and diagnosis of the physical condition anu relationship, if any. between Plaintiff s andor Decedent's exposure :o asbestos as well as asbestos exposure through brake or clutch servicing. Drs. Craighead and Roggn may testify in the area the medical and scientific aspects of exposure to dust as produced by crake or clutch products ar.u the dev eiopment of asbestos-related disease generally. Dr. Weir and Dr. Gibbs may testify in the areas of toxicology. ndustnal hygiene, r.ho.r: ,n toxicology and methodology, mechanisms of pulmonary irritant act-v tty and the extrapolation of oata from animals to man. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOIESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page spo : o-r, 0 100 Gregory D. Foster, M.D and/or Custodian of Records Pulmonary Medicine Consultants. P.A. 375 Muffl'd pal Drive, Suite 218 Richardson. Texas 75080 972/680-0666 Scott R. Donaldson. M.D. and/or Custodian of Records Pulmonary Medicine Consultants. P.A. 3 "5 Municipal Drive. Suite 218 Richardson. Texas 75080 9-2.680-0666 Kathryn A. Hale. M.D. Baylor College of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine 6550 Fannin. Suite Tower 3 1236 Houston. Texas 77030 713-790-2076 Robert M. Ross. M.D. and or C ustodian of Records 1 -030 Nanes. Suite 214 Houston. Texas 77090 713 440-8851 George Delclos, M.D. 6550 Fannin Street. Suite 2403 Houston. Texas 77030 -13 790-6250 David Weill. M.D. and-or Custodian of Records Medical City Hospital Dallas. Texas 972/566-4866 Gail Diane Stockman, M.D.. Ph.D. -Q1 E. Marshall, Suite 4002 Longview, Texas 75601 903/753-0787 DEFENDANT DA IM LERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLF.STS FOR PRODUCTION - Page '0 Drs. Foster. Donaldson. Ross. Delcios. Hale. Weill and Stockman may testify concerning the examination and diagnosis of the physical condition of Plaintiffs and concerning the o\erall condition and relationship of that condition, if any, to Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to asbestos. Each doctor may also testify concerning the anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory sy stem, the nature of asbestos, the disease process and diagnosis of asbestos and cancer associated with the respiratory system, the nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding the association of pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure, the effect of exposure to sucstar.ces other than asbestos on the development or manifestation of obstruct: \e and restrictive conditions and diseases particularly in means of establishing the differential diagnosis of alleged asbestos diseases with other government warnings, smoking and other areas of the state-of-the-art. incidents of 1-ng cancer among individuals with asbestosis compared with non-asbestos exposed workers and with the general population, and cigarette smoking and its effects on the .ungs. Sam H. Cade. Jr. M.D. Radiology Department Baylor University Medical Center 3500 Gaston Avenue Dallas. Texas 75242 214 820-3219 Dr Cade is a B reader and may testify regarding the radiographs of Plaintiffs. James Robert Shepherd. III. M.D. University of Texas Health Center at Tyler Department of Radiology Post Office Box 2003 Tyler. Texas 75710-2003 903-877-7108 Dr. Shepherd is a B reader and may testify regarding the radiographs of Plaintiffs. Robert Tamper:, M.D. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES \ ND REOCESTS FOR PROOCCTIQV - Pa?e 'I Baylor College of Medicine Department oflntemal Medicine. Pulmonary Section 6550 Fannin, Suite 1220 Houston^ Texas 77030 713/793-8988 Dr. Lampert may testily' regarding his examination of Plaintiffs and/or Decedents. Dr. Andrew Churg Department of Pathology University of British Columbia 2211 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver. BC V6T BS Canada 604 "32-0186 Dr. Churg :s Board Certified in Anatomic Pathology by me American Board of Pathoiogy Dr. Churg may provide testimony regarding his examination of plaintiffs' medical records and pathology material. Dr. Churg may also testify regarding the biological effects of asbestos and the evidence of the relationship between the inhalation of various forms of asbestos fibers and asbestos- associated disease and the factors that go into evaluating whether there is any medical risk from asbestos-containing products. Dr. Churg may further testify' regarding the physical and chemicai changes that brake linings undergo during the braking process. Dr Churg may further provide testimony based on biostatistics and his review and analysis of trie epidemiological data and merature mat brake mechanics and others are not at an increased risk to develop asbestos-reiated diseases as a result of their work on or around brakes and brake .ir.ir.gs Dr. Churg may also pro', ue testimony regarding animal research concerning asbestos-reiated disease, the biological effects asbestos and various other dusts, cancer research, the practices and protocols regarding publication of scientific research and the history of research into such matters m the United States and elsewhere including state of the art. Dr. Churg may also be asked to respond to the testimony from plaintiffs' DEFENDANT D.A1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page *: experts regarding the alleged hazards of exposure to friction materials and their alleged propensity to release fibers. The observations and opinions offered by Dr. Churg in this matter will be based on his review of the materials provided: a continuing review of the available scientific literature relating to the health effects of materials of interest in this matter and Dr. Churg's education and professional experience. As Chry sler becomes aware of additional facts and the opinions of plaintiffs' experts, this witness may testify regarding his opinions of the additional facts or in response to the opinions of plaintiffs' experts. Dr James D. Crapo 4650 South Forest Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 303- 224-0681 Dr. Crapo is the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs at the National Jewish Medical & Research Center in Colorado. Dr. Crapo may be called to testify with respect to medicai eondition and causation. Dr. Crapo may also testify with respect to the anatomy and function af the human respiratory system, pulmonary function testing, diseases allegedly associated with exposure to asbestos and the development of related scientific and medical knowledge. Dr. Crapo may further testify regarding the biological effects of asbestos and the evidence of the relationship between the inhalation of various forms of asbestos fibers and asbestos-associated disease and the factors to re considered in evaluating whether there is any medical risk from exposure to various asbestoscontaining products. He may also provide testimony regarding animal research concerning asbestosrelated disease, the biological effects of asbestos and various other dusts, cancer research, the DEFENDANT DAl.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page '3 practices and protocols regarding publication of scientific research and the history of research into such matters in the United States and elsewhere, including state of the art. Dr. Crapo may further testify regarding radiology as a diagnostic aid in asbestos-associated disease as '.'ell as to his review and opinions of the radiographic findings and the correlation of those findings with plaintiff s medical records, work history and other diagnostic studies. Dr. Crapo may further provide testimony based on his review of the medical and scientific literature that brake mechanics and others are not at an increased risk to develop asbestos-related diseases as a resuit of their work on or around friction products. Dr. Crapo may also be asked to respond to the testirr.cn> of certain plaintiffs' witnesses offered at the time of trial including, but not limited to. any testimony from plaintiffs' experts regarding the alleged hazards of exposure to friction materials ana their alleged propensity to release fibers. The observations and opinions offered by Dr. Crapo in any matter will be based on his re\ iew of the materials provided; a continuing review of the available scientific literature relating to the health effects of material of interest in this matter and Dr. Crapo's education and professional experience. As a Chrysler becomes aware of additional facts and the opinions of plaintiffs' experts, tms witness may testify regarding his opinions of the additional facts or in response to the opinions of plaintiff s experts. William G. Hughson, M.D. University of California at San Diego LaJolla, California 92093 619/294-6001 DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page *4 ; f f ~ <?r 2 d-Q f ' V, Dr. Hughson is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and Pulmonary Medicine. Dr. Hughson may be called to testify with respect to the anatomy and function of the human respiratory system, pulmonary function testing, diseases allegedly associated with exposure to asbestos and the development of related scientific and medical knowledge. Dr. Hughson may be called to testify with respect to medical condition and causation in these cases. Dr. Hughson may also be asked to respond to the testimony of certain witnesses offered at the time of trial including, but not limited to. testimony from plaintiffs' experts regarding the alleged hazards of exposure to faction materials ar.d their alleged propensity to release fibers. Dr. Hughson may further provide testimony based on his review of the medical and scientific literature that brake mechanics and others are not at an increased risk to develop asbestos-reiated diseases as a result of their work on or around brakes and brake linings. Dr. Hughson may further testify regarding radiology as a diagnostic aid in asbestosassociated disease as well as to his review and opinions of the radiographic findings and the correlation of those findings with plaintiffs' or decedents' medical records, work history ana oner diagnostic studies. The observations and opinions offered by Dr. Hughson in this matter will be based on ns rev iew of the materials provided; a continuing review of the available scientific literature renting to the health effects of materials of interest m this matter me Dr. Hughson's education .no professional experience. As Chrysler becomes aware of additional facts and the opinions of plaintiffs' expens, tms witness may testify regarding his opinions of the additional facts or in response to the opinions ot plaintiffs' experts. DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page SPO ! 0 ! '/) OTC"'*9 Ronald F. Dodson, Ph.D. Chairman, Department of Cell Biology and Environmental Sciences University of Texas Health Center at Tyler Office of Associate Director of Research P.O. Box 2003 Tyler. Texas 75710 Dr. Dodson is an expert in microscopy relating to pathology. If called. Dr. Dodson will testify' regarding: fa) pathology studies, any. relating to the Plaintiff, sbi matters relating to whether the Plaintiff has a condition or illness caused by asbestos exposure, ana tel matters relating to .ung fiber deposition. Sheldon H. Rabinovitz. Ph.D.. C.I.H. Sandler Occupational Medicine Associates 966 Hungerford Drive, Suite 20 Rockville. Maryland 20850 (301)217-0092 (P.O. Box 7777, Melville, New York 11747) Dr. Rabinovitz may be called to testify' regarding mechanics' asbestos exposure conditions and health effects and the fact that mechanics are not exposed to levels of asbestos that result ;n any disease. Dr. Rabinovitz may also testify regarding mechanics' lack of asbestos exposure as ev idenced through testing concerning brake and clutch servicing. Helen Reynolds. Ph.D. Consulting Economist 4316 Potomac Dallas, Texas 75205 ; 14/443-0322 Dr. Reynolds is an economic consultant and may testify regarding the economic loss .r.curred by Plaintiffs, if any. William H. Krebs, Ph.D. Assistant Director, Occupational Safety and Health DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED \NSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page '6 6 0 -99:: r _i' i . SP I1n;. o'rj General Motors Corporation 1014 Bishop Road Grosse Point, Michigan 303/885^90-39. Dr. KLrebs has a degree in public health and has had training in epidemiology. He may be called to testily with regard to friction products which contain asbestos, forsterite. release of asbestos libers during the braking process, testing of brake products, medical and scientific literature which addresses the listed topics, and threshold limit values. Arnold E. Anderson Tribo Diagnostic Corporation P.O. Box 2008 Livonia. Michigan 48151 313.427-6507 ' Mr. Anderson has expertise in the composition, manufacture, use and wear characteristics of friction materials. He may be asked to testify' concerning the following matters: (a) how a crake job is performed and the potential for dust exposure; (b) the science of tribology; (o the t;.pes. characteristics and chemical properties of asbestos used in friction materials and their pathogenic potential; td) the ty pes, composition and manufacture of friction materials; (e) the history of fricucn materials, the use of asbestos in friction materials and the availability of substitutes for asbestos. A decomposition of asbestos in friction materials during the wear process: (g) the nature of residua; materials after wear; and i.h) the effects of wear debris in the occupational environment of worker; wnere friction materials are used. If called, he is expected to test: fr- concerning certain other ustcects of and bases for these general areas of opinion relating to this cause, or other matters -f fact regarding friction materials which because of their technical nature, may contain such opinions. Graham W. Gibbs 14-51221 Range Road DEFENDANT D.Al.MLERCHRV SLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOL'ESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page " '::"lri S?f '1 ') 10 l1"'}''^ 265 Spruce Grove Alberta, Canada T7Y1E7 403/987-2883 Graham Gibbs has expertise in the areas of epidemiology, industnai hygiene, and toxicology. both generally and particularly as those areas relate to asbestos exposure and exposure to asbestoscontaining friction products. His opinions and the grounds for same include the following matters < a i the types, characteristics and chemical properties of asbestos arc their respective pathogenic potential, ibi the types, composition and manufacture of friction materials; i c > the history of friction matenais. the use of asbestos in friction materials, and the lack of av arability of suitable surstntre materials for such use at relevant times; yd) decomposition of asbestrs ,n friction materials curing the wear process; ie) the composition of residual materials after wear Coes not include significant asbestos: if) the effects of wear and the occupational environment of workers in which these products are used; ig) federal laws and regulations governing asbestos exposure; (h) threshold not values and time-weighted averages; (i) characteristics and epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases: (j i relevant medical and scientific literature on these subjects; (ki the concepts of toxicity ar.c hasarc. including discussion of the human body's natural defense system. 1 cose response relation.:;'.:s mi potential for asbestos exposure in occupational settings; and n > types, characteristics, ar.c -ses of various types of asbestos. He may also be called to testify concerning certain m other seta:.; relating to aspects of and bases for these areas of opinions relating tr.ts action: or. i ii i other tr are'-: of fact which because of technical nature may contain some opinions. John W. Kourtk, P.E. 1136 Olivaire Lane St. Louis, Missouri 63132 314,994-7857 DEFENDANT D.AI.MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOI ESTS FOR PRODLCTION - Page "S <?r:o.oc.'ro~w Witness Kourik may be called to testify about the braking systems of various vehicles and state of the art information. He may also testify' about developments in braking system design, manufacture and testing. He may testify further concerning the mechanics of friction products, braking system repair procedures and consumer expectations of braking systems and vehicle safety. Mr. Kounk may testify about the characteristics of chrvsotile asbestos and its use in friction products as well as substitute and replacement materials for asbestos in friction products. Additionally. Chrysler reserves the right to call as a witness a.: doctors who have exam.r.ed Plaintiffs and.-or Decedents, reviewed Plaintiffs' andor Decedents' medical records, and or nave been designated as witnesses by any other parties to this action, as well as the custodians of applicable medical records. Chrysler also reserves the right to use any Affidavit. Deposition. Answer to Interrogatories or Request for Admissions made by any pans to this action whether or not such party is stiil a party at the time of trial. Chrysler further reser.es me right to call any witnesses as may be necessary for rebuttal testimony. To the extent that these a -.messes are alive, they may be called live or by deposition. Additionally, the experts listed above may testify regarding 'me lack of information regarumg . 11 health effects of chrvsotile asbestos used in friction products, state of the art and know mage m the industry during the relevant time frame. A copy of each identified individual's curriculum v.tae s rresently in the posse.'.':-: r. cf Plaintiffs' counsel. If an additional review of such is necessary.. same will be available for rev .ew at the office of counsel for Chrysler at a mutually convenient time DEFENDANT D.AIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROG ATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page *9 iPh roc INTERROGATORY NO. 61.: Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: -- A. identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. B. each and every individual Plaintiffs', separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and. or facts disputing each and e\erv Plaintiffs' alleged damages and. or injuries; C the negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiffs', separate and distinct from ail other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged mimes and or damages; D each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed .Answer in each of these cases. ANSWER: Chry sler objects to Interrogatory No. 61 to the extent that it is unlimited in time and scope and seeks information in violation of the attorney client and work product privileges. Subject to said objections, the following persons may have knowledge of relevant facts: Paul KellyMay be contacted through counsel) fames Knoll May be contacted through counsel) Donald Kvamberg May be contacted through counsel i Rooert Tomev ' May be contacted through counsel) George Traylor 5034 County Road 15 Wadley, Alabama 36276 DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSW ERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Pa?e SO INTERROGATORY NO. 62.: Please identify documents which will be used at time of trial. (Exhibit List. Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 62 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery. Further objecting, this interrogatory seeks to review Chrysler's attorney work product and trial preparation, and is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Texas Rules of Civ; Procedure. To the extent any such documents have reen identified, see the attached exhibit list INTERROGATORY NO. 63*; When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessor-tn-interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")'1 A. Identity- the name and position of the employee or officer who received same: B please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in am wav reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968: C please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based: D piease identify the namets) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify ;.our above response; E. did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report m whole or in pan as a oasis that Defendant's asbestos products couid be used :n the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer armor bystander; F. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Dnnker Repon in whole or m pan for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOLESTS FOR PRODUCTION . Page SI G. if your answer to 63(e) is yes. when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer- Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63ie) above? ANSWER: Chry sler objects to Interrogatory No. 63 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery. Subject to the foregoing objections and without same, from the 1930s. Chrysler emploved industrial hygiene professionals who were made abreast of government regulations, authoritative studies and tests, including the Fleischer-Dn.nker Report and the Dreessen Report, and relevant industrial hygiene guidelines. Due to the vast number of employees working for Chrysler through the years, it is not possible to identify which individual would have been the first aware of this report or how it was first conveyed to Chr> sler Chrysler believes it wouid have been generally aware of significant industrial hygiene studies. See Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 25. 26. 27 and 28. INTERROGATORY NO. 64it When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors- in-mteresi first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos m the Asbestos Textile Industry", published m 1938 in Public Health Bill. No. 241, L'.S. Public Health Service and authored b> W C Dreessen (''the Dreessen Report'')? A. Identify the name and position of the employee :r officer who received same. 3 please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in ary w a;, reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968, C. please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based. D. please identify the name(s) and address(es) of an> person(s) who can verifv ; our above response; DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page S2 E. did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the u/orkplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer anchor bystander. F. if so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in pan for the proposition stated in Interrogatory 63(a) above; G. if your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) abov e0 ANSWER: Chrysler objects to Interrogatory No. 64 for the reason that it is overly broad, vague ana ambiguous and is unlimited in scope or in time and seeks information which is outside the scope or permissible discovery Subject to the foregoing objections and without same, from the '.430s. Chrysler employed industrial hygiene professionals who were made abreast of government regulations, authoritative studies and tests, including the Dreessen Report, and relevant industrial hygiene guidelines. Someone in the Industrial Hygiene Department would have become aware of Public Health Bill No. 241 at the time it became part of the scientific literature. Due to the ast number of employees working for Chrysler through the years, it is not possible to identify which individual would have been the first aware of this report or how it was first conveyed to Chry sier. Chrysler believes it would have been generally aware of significant industrial hygiene stucies See Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 25. 26. 27 and 28. VII. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I.: Please produce a true and correct copy of each photograph of each asbestos-containing product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4 DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION - Page SJ ::5"0o SPO-::^ OiOC 0"Q799 RESPONSE: Chrysler objects to Request for Production No. I as being overly broad, burdensome, and not reasonably limited in time or in scope and is therefore outside the scope of permissible discovery. Subject to the foregoing objections, and without waiving same, Chrysler does not maintain documentary or photographic evidence of all prior products. REOL'EST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Please produce any diagrams or schematics indicating, stating or detailing the existence of any of your subsidiaries, predecessors, or divisions as detuned on Page 1 of these Interrogatories and Request for Production RESPONSE. Chrysler objects to Request for Production No. 2 as ire mg overly broad and vague mu fails to set forth with particularity those items to be produced ar.u s therefore outside the scope or permissible discovery. Further objecting, this Request is not reasonably limited in time or scope, is unduly burdensome and is sought for purposes of harassment, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Over the many y ears co1. ered by this litigation Chrysler has had numerous corporate structures in the United States and throughout the world. Respectfully submitted. ^.cdUx. _________________ J. MARK PENLEY State Bar No. i5~:0~00 KATIE ANDERSON State Bar No. 1 STRASBl'RGER <k PRICE, L.L.P. 901 Main Street. Suite 4300 Dallas. Texas 75202 (214) 651-4300 (214) 651-4330 (telecopy) DEFENDANT DA1MLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOl ESTS FOR PRODICTION - Page S-l ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the abov e and foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 7th day of July, 1999. KATIE ANDERSON DEFENDANT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S THIRD AMENDED ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES AND REOIZESTS FOR PRODUCTION . Pa?e 85 STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ss: COUNTY OF OAKLAND ) R.D. HOUTMAN, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is an Assistant Secretary of DaimlerChrysler Corporation (formerly Chrysler Corporation, the surviving corporation following the mergers effective December 30 and 31, 1989, of Chrysler Corporation and a number of its subsidiaries, including Chrysler Motors Corporation); that he has read the ;oregoing Third Amended Answers to the attached Dallas County Master Interrogatories and subscribed to same on behalf of DaimlerChrysler Corporation; that me foregoing answers are based on information communicated by DaimlerChrysler Corporation personnel and other persons and information obtained from books and records of DaimlerChrysler Corporation; and that he has no reason to believe that the foregoing responses are not true and correct. DaimlerChrysler Corporation Subscribed and sworn to before me Notary PuBlic, Oakland County State of Michigan My Commission expires on:___ CHRYSLER CORPORATION'S TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST EXHIBIT NUMBER 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 010. Oil. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT Bjarvholm, J. Brisman: Asbestos associated tumors in car mechanics. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1988. 45:645-646. Rohl. Arthur N., Langer, Arthur M., Woiff. Mary S. & Weisman. Irving: .Asbestos Exposure during Brake Lining Maintenance and Repair. Environmental Research: 2, 110-123 < 1976). Edelman, D. A.: Exposure to asbestos ana :he risk of gastrointestinal cancer: a reassessment. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1988: 45:75-82. ' Weiss, W.: Cigarette Smoke, Asbestos, and Small Irregular Opacities. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1984; 130-293-301 Luxon, S.: Technical Implementation of the Sew .Asbestos Regulations. Annals of Occupational Hygiene (British). January 1970. Lynch, J. R.: Brake Lining Decomposition Products, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 18, No. 12. pp. 824-826. Wong, O., Report: The Epidemiology of Lung Cancer in Workers Exposed to Brake Lining Dust, prepared for Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinskv. P.C.. (1995) in the case of Seddon .Dennison) v. Abex CorpQratioiL_Lai. Wong, O.: Using Epidemiology to Determine Causation in Disease. Epidemiology and Causation, pp. 496-505. Stanley, K. E.: Lung Cancer and Tobacco-a Global Problem. Cancer Detection and Prevention 9:83-89 (1986). Williams, R. L. & Muhlbaier. J. L.: .Asbestos Brake Emissions. Environmental Research 29, 70-82 (1982). Lorimer, W. V., Rohl, A. N., Miller, A., Nicholson, W. J. & Sehkotf. I. J.: Asbestos Exposure of Brake Repair Workers in the United States. The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 3, (1976). CHRYSLER CORP. ASBESTOS TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST : spa:irooi00/cro799 - Page 1 EXHIBIT NUMBER 012. 013. 014. 1 015. 016. 017. 018. 019. 020. 021. 022. 023. 024. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT Rohl, A'.` N., Langer, A. M., Klimentidis, R., Wolff, M. S. & Selikoff, I. J.: Asbestos Content of Dust Encountered in Brake Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 70. (1977). Dement, J. M.: Cincinnati Municipal Garage Automobile Brake Servicing Operation, U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health. U.S.Dept, of Commerce, PB83-188045 (1972). Hickish, D. E. Sc Knight, K. L.: Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance. Ann.Occup.Hyg., Vol. 13. od. 17-21, (1970) (British I i Wright, G. W. & Kuschner, M.: The Influence of Varying Lengths of Glass and Asbestos Fibres on Tissue Response in Guinea Pigs. i Marcus, K., Jarvholm, B. G.. Larsson, S.. Asbestos-associated lung effects in car mechanics. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 13 (198") 252- ! 254. j Berry, G. & Newhouse, M. L.: Mortality of workers manufacturing friction materials using asbestos, British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1983 40:1-7. ! McDonald, A. D., Fry, J. S., Woolley, A. J. & McDonald, J.C.: Dust exposure and mortality in an American chrysotile asbestos friction products plant. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1984, 41:15-157 j j Weiss, W.: Mortality of a Cohort Exposed to Chrysotile Asbestos. Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 19. No. 11 (1977). Wong, O.; Chrysotile .Asbestos, Mesothelioma, and Garage Mechanics. ; American Journal of Industrial Medicine 21:449-451 (1992). Weiss, W.: Cigarette smoking and small irregular opacities. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1991; 48:341-844. McDonald, A. D. & McDonald. J. C.: Malignant Mesothelioma in North America. Cancer 46:1650-1656, 1980. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Public Health Service Publication No. 1103. ; 1 Cohen, David: Smoking Impairs Long-Term Dust Clearance from the Lung: Science, Vol. 204, (514-517) 1979. j ! CHRYSLER CORP. ASBESTOS TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST 5:: spo-:!r'>oioo.crcr Page 2 EXHIBIT NUMBER 025. 026. 027. 028. 029. 030. 031. 032. 033. 034. 035. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT Schwartz, Eugene, M.D.,M.P.H.: Proportionate Mortality Ratio Analysis of Automobile Mechanics and Gasoline Service Station Workers in New Hampshire; American Journal of Industrial Medicine 12:91-99 (1987) Letters to the Editor, Pleural mesothelioma in oil refinery workers; Scand J Work Environ Health 1995; 21:301-9. Wynder, Ernest L. & Graham, Evarts A.. M.D.: Tobacco Smoking as a Possible Etiologic Factor in Bronchiogemc Carcinoma', J.A.M.A. 143:329-338 (1950). Antman, K. A., Carson, J. M., Li,F.P., Greenberger, J., Sytkowski, A., Henson, D. E. & Weinstein, L.: Malignant Mesothelioma Following Radiation Exposure, J. of Clinicai Oncology; 1:695-700 (1983). Li!is, Ruth, M.D.: Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in Cappadocia, Turkey; J Occup Med v.23:548-550. Artvinll, M., M.D. & Bana, Y.I., M.D.: Malignant Mesotheliomas in a Small Village in the Anatolian Region of Turkey: An Epidemiologic Study; JNCI v.63:17-22 (1979). Craighead, J. E., M.D. & Mossman, B. T., Ph.D.: The Pathogenesis of Asbestos-Associated Diseases; N Engl J Med v. 306:1446-1455 (1982). Anderson, A. E., Gealer, R. L., McCune. R. C., Sprys, J. W.: Asbestos Emission from Brake Dynamometer Tests; Society of Automotive Engineers, Automobile Engineering Meeting, Detroit. MI May 14-18, 1973. j McDonald, A. D., M.D.. Fry, J. S., Ph.D.: Mesothelioma and fiber type in three American asbestos factories--Preliminary report; Scand J Work Environ Health 8 (1982); suppl 1, 53-58. McDonald, J. C.: Health Implications of Environmental Exposure to Asbestos, Environmental Heal Perspectives. Vol. 62, pp. 319-328. 1985. Stanton, P. F., Layard, M., Tegeris, A., Miller, E., May, M. & Kent, E.: Carcinogenicity of Fibrous Glass: Pleural Response in the Rat in Relation to Fiber Dimension. J Natl Cancer Inst 58: 587-603. 1977. CHRYSLER CORP. ASBESTOS TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST ; sTo'oioa<rrr:9<) - Page 3 EXHIBIT NUMBER 036. 037. 038. 039. 040. 041. 042. 043. 044. 045. 046. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT Newhou'se, M. L., Sullivan, K. R., A mortality study of workers manufacturing friction materials: 1941 - 86, British Journal of Industrial Medicine; 46:176-179. Acheson, E. D., Gardner, M. J., Winter, P. D., Bennett, C., Cancer in a Factory Using Amosite Asbestos, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1984 13:3-10. Milne, K.L., Sandler, D.P. Everson, R.B. and Brown, S.M.: Lung cancer and occupational in Alameda County: A death certificate casecontrol studv, Am.J.Ind..Med. 4:565-5"5, 1983. Morabia, A., Markowitz. S.. Garibaldi. K.. and Wynder, E.L.: Lung cancer and occupation: results of a multicentre case-control study. Br.J.Ind.Med. 49:721-727. 1992. ' i j Gustavsson, P., Plato, N., Lidstrom E-B. and Hogstedt, C.: Lung cancer and exposure to diesel exhaust among bus garage workers. Scand.J.Work Environ. Health 16:348-354, 1990. Benhamou, S., Benhamou, E. and Flamant. R.: Occupational risk factors of lung cancer in a French case-control study. Br.J.Ind.Med. 45:231-233, 1988. Hansen, E.S.: Mortality of auto mechanics. Scand.J.Work Environ, health 15:43-46, 1989. i j Lerchen, M.L., Wiggins, C.L., Samet, J.M.: Lung cancer and occupation in New Mexico. JNCI 79:639-645, 1987. Langer, A.M., and McCaughey, W.T.E.: Mesothelioma in a brake repair worker. Lancet (Nov. 13, 19821. pp. 1101-1103. \ David, J.M.G., and Coniam, S.W.: Experimental studies on the effects of heated chrysotile asbestos and automobile brake lining dust injected into the bodv cavities of mice. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 19:339-353. 1973. Woitowitz, H-J, Lange H-J, Beierl L.. Rathgeb, M., Schmidt, K.. Urn. K., Giesen, T., Woitowitz, R.H., Pache. L. and Rodelsperger, K.: Mortality rates in the Federal Republic of German following previous occupational exposure to asbestos dust. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 57:161-171, 1986. 1 j CHRYSLER CORP. ASBESTOS TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST : 1464 i spo/:i9^0/0ioo/(ncr<w - Page 4 EXHIBIT NUMBER 047. 048. 049. 050. 051. 052. 053. 054. 055. 056. 057. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT Cheng, V.K.I., and O'Kelly, F.J.: Asbestos exposure in the motor vehicle repair and servicing industry in Hong Kong. J.Soc.Occup.med. 36:104-106, 1986. Newhouse, M.L., Berry, G. and Skidmore, J.W.: A mortality study of workers manufacturing friction materials with chrysotile asbestos. Ann.Occup.Hyg. 26:899-909, 1982. Rushton, L., Alderson, M.R., and Nagarajah. C.R.: Epidemiological survey of maintenance workers in London Transport Executive bus garages and Chiswick Works. Br.J.Ind..Med. 40:340-345, 1983. i Zahm, Shelia Hoar, Pierluigi Coccom M.D.. and Blair, Aaron, Ph.D.. Tobacco Smoking as a Risk Factor for Coion Polyps. Am.J. Pub. Health, j Vol. 81, No. 7, pp. 946-49 (July 1991). Peto, Richard, Lopez, Allen D., Boreham, Jillian, Thune, Michae. and Heath, Clark, Jr., Mortality from Tobacco in Developed Countries: Indirect Estimation from National Vital Statistics. The LANCET. Vol. 339, pp. 1268-1278 (May 23. 1992). Carbone M, et al.. Simian virus 40-like DNA sequences in human pleural mesotheliomas, 9 Oncogene 11781-1790 (1994). , Carbone, et al.. Simian virus-40 large-T antigen binds p53 in human mesotheliomas, 3 Nature Medicine 908-912 (Aug. 1997), DeLuca, et al., the retinoblastoma gene family pRB/plQ5. P1Q7. pRb2/p!30 and simian virus-40 large T-antigen in human mesothelioma. 3 Nature Medicine 913-916 (Aug. 1997). Craighead, John E.. M.D.: Do Silica and Asbestos Cause Lung Cancers Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., 116: 16-20(19921. Anspach, M., Jacob. G.,: Pulmonary Neoplasia Among Dresden Asbestos Workers, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 536-548. Hughes, Janet M., Weill, Hans: Asbestos as a Precursor of AsbestosRelated Lung Cancer: Results of a Prospective Morality Study, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 48: 229-233 (1991). CHRYSLER CORP. ASBESTOS TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST 521+64 1.SP0/21970/0100,070799 Page 5 EXHIBIT NUMBER 058. 059. 060. 061. 062. 063. 066 067 068 069 DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT Hughes/Janet M., Weill. Hans, et al.: Progression of Asbestos Effects: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Chest Radiographs and Lung Function, British Journal of Industrial Medicine. Vol. 46: 97-105 (1989). Browne, K., A Thresholdfor Asbestos/Related Lung Cancer, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 34: 556-558 (1986). Hammond, E. Cuyier, Selikoff, Irving, J.. Seidman, Herbert. Short- Term Asbestos Work Exposure and Long-Term Observation, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 61-89. j Liddell, F. D. K., McDonald, J. C., et al.: Dust Exposure and Mortality j in Chrysotile Mining, 1910-75, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 37: 11-24 (1980). Hammond, E. Cuyier, Selikoff, Irving J.. Seidman, Herbert: Mortality Experience of Insulation Workers in the United States and Canada, 1943- 1976, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 91-116. Kipen, H. M., et al. Pulmonary Fibrosis in .Asbestos Insulation Workers with Lung Cancer: a Radiological and Histopathological Evaluation. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 44 : 96-100 (1987). j McDonald, J.Corbett, M.D., Letter to the editor, "Tremolite, other Amphiboles, and Mesothelioma, Am.J. of Ind.Medicine 14:247-259 (1988). j Dufresne, A.; Begin, R.; Masse, S; Dufresne. C.M.; Loosereewanich. P.; Perrault, G.; "Retention of asbestos fibres in lungs of workers with asbestosis, asbestosis and lung cancer, and mesothelioma in Asbestos townshipOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 53(12):SO 1 - 807 (1996). ' Hammond, E.C., Horn, D.; "Smoking and death rates--report on fort.four months offollow-up of 187,783 men; ' J. A.M.A., Vol. 166:10. pp. 1159-1172 (1958). j Hackshaw, A.K., Law, M.R., Wald, N.J.; "The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke; ' Brit.Med.J., Vol. 315:980-988 (1997). j j CHRYSLER CORP. ASBESTOS TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST spo/21970/0100,ototw Page 6