Document xzXaY2oe50RRvDqjy1XKVzYgy

FILE NAME: Ferro Engineering (FER) DATE: 2013 DOC#: FER001 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Plaintiff's Interrogatories I 2 * 4 5 7 8 IN T E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR ICING COUNTY 9 JAMES B. TURNER and JOANNE IC. LIPSON, 10 husband and wife. ) NO. 13-207075-2 SEA 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 FRASER'S BOILER SERVICE, INC., ef ah, 14 Defendants, IS ) PLAINTIFFS' FIRST INTERROGATORIES 1 AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF ) DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT ON ) MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, ) FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION ) fINCORRECTLY NAMED AS OGLEBAY ) NORTON COMPANY) WITH ANSWERS ) 16 TO: ON MARINE SERVICES COMPAN Y, LLC FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION 17 AND TO: Counsel for Defendant ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION 18 YOU ARE HEREBY SERVED with Plaintiffs' First Set of InteiTogatQri.es and Requests 1<) for Production of Documents propounded to Defendant ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION. These interrogatories must fee answered, under oath, 20 within thirty (30) days uf service pursuant, to CR 33(a) and the General Style Order governing asbestos litigation in this jurisdiction. Please type the answers in the space provided, adding A'* 23 24 25 20 AiW 'fFFS' FIRST RrERROOATDRtS ANO KUQUfiTS FOR FR0BUCT10K op rxxroMfiNn; t hpkndant m marin'services company. u ,c . PARRO SfOilsREiUNG IViSN (ItCOKRECTUYUAMB0 AS OtBY *OR-!'O COMPARY WtTti AiSWfeJS-1 OGDEN MORPHY WAU.-ACB, P,L.L.C. 9-J fifth Averias, Spit JtiS WasWMgs** 9S M-.?.iJS Te!; 2jtl.L?0ri3X. 2&447.!UI5 INSTRUCTIONS 1. These discovery requests are 10 be regarded as eontmoing in. native, and Ton must supplement Your responses promptly if You obtain additional or different'material before trial in this action. 2. These discovery requests cover ail documents and information within the possession, custody, or control of, or reasonably available to, the responding defendant and its predecessor, successor, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, 'servants, attorneys, assigns, or any other representatives. 3k If any response, or-.portion thereo f, is withheld or objected to on the basis of a claim o f privilege of for any other reason, identify, with enough particularity to support a motion to compel, the discovery request for which the response, or portion thereof, has been withheld or objected to, the information that has been withheld or objected to, the specific claim or privilege or other reason for withholding the information and the basis for Your claim. 4. For each document produced In response to a discovery request, indicate on the document or in some other reasonable manner the number of the .request(s) to which it responds. 5. If anything is deleted from a document produced in response to a discovery fecjitesq Indicate the faet o f dedetion orrthe face o f the document and state in Your response to such request: (A) the reason for the deletion; and the subject matter of the deletion. 6. If any document otherwise responsive to any request is withheld under claim of privilege, furnish a list containing for each such document the following information: (A) the date of the document (B) the name and title of its author(s); (C) the name and title o f each person to whom it was addressed; (D) the name and title of each person to whom it was sent; (B) the name and title of each person to whom it was disclosed in whole or in part; (P) the number of pages; (G) a brief description of its subjset matter; (H) the request to which it is otherwise responsive; and (I) the nature of the claimed privilege. 7. For any documents produced in response to a request that are not now within the defendant's possession, custody or control, state in such response in whose possession, custody or control such documents may he found. If a document responsive to a request no longer exists, identify it and explain the circumstances of its loss or destruction. If no documents exist that ore responsive to a request, so state. 8. Discovery requests calling for numerical or chronological information shall be deemed, to the extent that the. precise figures or dates arc not known, to call for estimates. In each instance in which m estimate is given, identify it as such and specify the source o f information and the basis for the estimate. a.. ptAiPisri?:?' tsiisT iprBittmniVj'ORiits .vao REqoiiSTs roc production Of DOCUMENTSTOSEKfcNpANTONMA.RUSESERVICESCOMPANY. UC &$mb eNGINCiiRtNODIVISION(INCORRECTLYMAMEDASOGL80AY MORION COMPANY WITH ANSWS&S2 OGDEN MURPHVWAi.'.AOE, f .LI. 5>0i Fifth Avenue, SsiiR JSHf Sevtite, Wiisliiiigujij :>81ro-eocs Tel: IWMWmfcir a .W . ! I 9. All discovery requests which are slated ia the conjunctive are to he read as if also stated in the disjunctive;, and vice versa (he,, answer each request as it requiring an 2 "and/or" response). Similarly, in all discovery requests, the singular form of a noun is to be read as including the plural form, and vice versa, and all verbs shall be construed to include all ' 3 tenses. 4 10. Unless otherwise spec!(led. the time for each discovery request shal include the period from 1940 to 1979. a 1], Pursuant to Rule 33(a), these- interrogatories are to be answered separately and 6 fully in writing under oath, unless objected to, in which event the reasons for objection are to be stated in lieu o f art answer in. accordance, with Instruction 3 above. The answers are to be 7 signed hv the person making them and the objections signed by the attorney making them. 8 12. Where an Interrogatory requests the identity o f each person with responsibility over certain matters, the request shall be deemed to include each person, other than those with 9 wholly clerical duties, who has responsibility over the matter. The request shall trot be limited to the head of a department, division or branch, but shall include subordinate employees other 10 than clerical stuff who have responsibility over the matter. 11 13. Where an Interrogatory seeks identification of documents, the defendant may in lieu thereof attach a copy o f the documents) to its response to the interrogatory pursuant to 12 Rule 33(c) of the Civil Rules. For each document produced, indicate on the document or in some other reasonable manner the Interrogatory to which it responds. 13 14. If any Interrogatory cannot be answered fully, provide as complete an answer as 14 possible, state the reason tor the inability to provide a complete answer, and provide any information-, knowledge or belief defendant has regarding the portion unanswered. 13 15. This discovery request requires production of drafts of documents covered by a 16 request as well as all non-identical copies of tire documents, e.g., they would require the production of a draft letter,, the letter as sent and a copy of that letter on which there are 17 additional markings or writings. 18 DEFINITIONS 19 Unless otherwise defined herein, the following definitions apply to these discovery requests: 20 1, " Yon" means defendant ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC FERRO 21 ENGINEERING DIVISION, its officers, directors, employees, parent corpomtjons, subsidiary corporations, affiliates, predecessors in interest, including specifically LINK-BELT 22 CORPORATION, agents, consultants, contractors, attorneys, representatives, and ail other 23 persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of said defendant. 24 `Document" means any and all material that is written, printed, typed, photographed, recorded (whether electrics electronically, magnetically, grap or 25 otherwise) or which is capable o f being recorded in any form, it includes, but is not limited to papers, hooks, records, letters, photographs, tangible things, correspondence, communications, 26 telegrams, cables, Telex messages, memoranda, laboratory work papers, batch sheets, other PUUNtlFFS' FIXST VNiUEROGATORlSS AND REOU8STS FOREKODUCTiON OF UOClfMUHTS TO DEFENDANTOH MARINESERVICES COMPANY, U.C, m ,m anoiH Bsm bq division $iN C \m aC T tt n a m d as oocsday NORTON COMPANY W T O ANSWERS - 3 (m > m m m a y w a u a c e, a.i..t, 9(H FiRi) Avesiic, Suiffi 35CO Sbifrie, WiisHiagiiw 8itrt -2008 TO-iwmtJmiPM OSNE?.15 i work papers, ledger sheets, transcripts.: minutes, reports, and recordings o f telephone or other conversations or o f interviews, conferences or other meetings, affidavits, statements, 2 summaries, opinions, reports, studies, drafts, drafts of studies, analyses, bulletins, notices, 3 announcements, advertisements. Instructions, charts, manuals, brochures, publications, schedules, journals, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, diaries, lists, logs, 4 well logs, field logs, tabulations, sound recordings, computer files, computer tapes, computer printouts, gas chromatograms, mass spectra, data processing in-put and out-put, microfilm, 5 books o f account, records, invoices, cheeks, notes, diagrams, maps, graphs, graphs or materials with handwriting or other printing on them, hooks, library reference, textbooks, treatises, and 6 other tangible material. y<. 3. `'Component" means any internal or external part of one. of Your products, items, 8 or pieces of equipments even if such part was not originally manufactured by You, including but not limited to brake and clutch friction material. o 4. `'Relate to" or "relating to" means referring td, constituting, defining, 10 concerning, containing, embodying, reflecting. Identifying, stating, illustrating, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to. 11 12 5. `identify" nr "identity" means: 13 (A) with respect, to a natural person, io provide the person's (i) full name, (ii) present or last known business; and home addresses and phone numbers, (in) present or last known 1.4 employer and position with that employer; and (Sv) employer and position at the time relevant to the interrogatory involved; 15 (B) with respect to an entity other than a natural person, to provide (i) the full name of the organization or entity; (ii) the present or last known address o f tire organization of entity, 16 and (Hi) the name, title and address o f its chief executive officer; 17 (C) with respect to a document, to provide the document's (i) date; (Vi) author and signatory: (in) type (e,.g:, letter, memorandum); (iv) title and subject matter; (v) addressee and 18 ali other persons receiving copies; (vi) custodian; and (vii) its present or last known location; (D) with respect to m act, action, or activity, to provide: (i) a description of the act 19 Or activity: (ii) the date it occurred; (iii) the place it occurred; (tv) the identity o f each document 20 relating to the act or activity; and (v) the identity of each person who participated or engaged in the act or activity; 21 (B) with respect to a comraumcation, to provide: (i) the date of the communication; (ii) the place it occurred; (iii) the identity of each person who originated, received, participated, 22 or was present during the communication: (iv) the type o f communication (e.g.* letter, telegram, tdephone conversation): (v) the identity o f each document, relating or referring to or comprising 23 such communication; and (vi) the substance ofthe eomnumication. 24 25 26 iiOAl0VMii5iXiVO53i'X!W3\ s n A i u m f r P ite r r .o rr a u m G A r iU H S ^a n o r e q u e s t s f o r f O o u e c r iO N o f p o c u M S ffm tri e t o t e w f r o n m rim r stsavrers c o m p a n y tac. F i-tm o fti(mmumy m m m w e d R k n c r ty m m v a s n o u n s a y NORTONCOMPANYWSTtt ANSWERS.- 4 OGDEN MORPHY WAtAACE, P.U.L.C. m FUUt Avawe. Suits .3500 Seattle, Washington 9 154-2008 TU: 2064?.-7SGVsk: 205.447 0215 1 INTERROGATORIES a - 5 June, 2 0 0 , 2 3 4 5 it ? 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 3 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Knitted this 10* day oi BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG .... ...................................................................................._ _ Vanessa' Timhaber Oslund, WSBA #38252 Counsel for Plaintiffs PCADmPFS' PiKST INTtiRROOATC'RSES AND REQUESTS FOX PRODl/CXiON OP DOCUMENTS TO DEPENDANT OK MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, U-C, PERROi-NOiNECRSNCDi VISION .riNCORRPCTi-Y NAMED AS 0<3LEt3AY No r t o n c o m i w y w i t h a n s w e r s - s OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE. P.U...C 903 Fifth Av*aue, .Sate 3500 Ssatsk, WS!thia&W$8i-208g f& a tem w m * * : m .m m s Defendant Fern Eiiginseriog Division of ON Marine Services Company. LEG, a Delaware limited liability company (Defendant), incorrectly named in the Plaintiffo Complaint as Oglebay Notion Company a/k/a Oglebay Norton Engineered Materials, a/k/a ON Marine Services. Inc., and its division The Ferro Engineering Division, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby submits the following answers and objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of interrogatories and Requests for Production to the above-named Defendant, GENERAL OBJECTIONS At no time did Defendant manufacture, sell distribute or supply any asbestos-containing products, Other than through its former division, Ferro Engineering. Any and all products, including those containing asbestos, were manufactured by and sold through the Ferro Engineering Division. Defendant therefore responds to Plaintiffs' First Set of interrogatories and Requests for Production o f Documents on behalf of its former division, Ferro Engineering, Notwithstanding the above, Defendant objects to the foliowing First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production insofar as they seek information which is subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, or which is otherwise not discoverable under the provisions of the Washington Rules o f Civil Procedure. Defendant also objects to any interrogatories and Requests for Production that seek production of any information consisting of a trade secret, confidential financial data or other confidential research, development or commercial information. Discovery is still continuing in this case and Defendant wall supplement its answers as any additional information becomes available. .ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS MaifttlfSf First Set o f Interrogatories and Requests for Production are directed- to Oglebay Norton Company a/k/a Oglebay Norton Engineered Materials, a/k/a ON Marine i: ::i<)l.X>i..,: :>.'>2* ....... iteainTmfo-rfhmifemaoOA'rolUBSWffeaEOUEsrsroRsaoDuCTiob OP ODOUMKUTS TO raT S N DAti'f ON MARINE-SSskViGBS COMPANY, ICC, fgR R O KN U iN E^tiN d DIVISION (iNGOiOUjCTLY NAM E AS-GGLBBAY -NORYON C o m AKV W ITH ANSWERS 6 OOOW MURPHY-WAUACS.'PX.Ue. 901 Pift Avestie. Suite SSftfi SpsHis, Wftsi?Ingtontoi<U-2008 Te!.: 20i-i4T7Ort;is:<: 20^7.92!5 'i Services, Inc., and its division. The Ferro Engineering Division. Plaintiff iras improperly named 2 Oglebay Norton Company as a defendant. The proper entity is Ferro Engineering Division of 3 OH Marine Services Company. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, which is a wholly 4 owned subsidiary of Oglebay Norton Company, LLC. an Ohio limited' liability company. 5 Present-day Oglebay Horton Company had no involvement in any activities .relating to Plaintiffs' 6 claims and holds no legal liability for any activities of the Ferro Engineering Division of ON 7 Marine Services Company, LLC, Accordingly, the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests fa r B Production arc improperly issued to Oglebay Norton Company, which is not in a position to 9 respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The proper party I I to which such Interrogatories and Requests lor Production should be directed is the Ferro Engineering Division of ON Marine Services Company, LLC, which entity hereby responds to Plaintiffs' First Set o f Interrogatories and Requests for Production as follows: 13 INTERROGATORIES 14 L Did you ever sell, supply, and/or distribute hot tops to Bethlehem Steel m Seattle, 15 Washington during the years 1970 to 1976? 16 RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its General Objections and Additional Objections 17 listed above in connection with its subsequent responses. Defendant further objects on the 18 grounds that "hot tops" is a generic term with several meanings and thus this Interrogatory is 19 technically unanswerabie. Defendant further objects as Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that 20 Mr, Turner ever worked with, or in the vicinity of, any products manufactured, sold or 21 distributed by this Defendant. Therefore, this Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome. 22 and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its 23 objections, Defendant did manufacture and sell certain asbestos-containing products for use with 24 hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle at various times during the years 1970 to 1976. 25 2. Did you ever manufacture, assemble, sell, supply, or otherwise put in the stream of 36 commerce hot tops that contained asbestos after 1969?' KCiA:.Mi-I.SVCXA:VK.-KiOCOSV PLAtNTUW P )m NfERROOTORTf: AND RSOUfrtS FOR PftOOUCTiOH OS DOCUMENTS TO OKPKNDANT ON MAB3NE SERVICES COMPANY. U..C, r m i DNOiNCHRiNO O/VfSiON ANGOSimCTi.y NAMED AS OUUrUbVY HORTON COMMNVWrmANSWERS-? OODKN MURPHY WALLACE, P.LLC. m rtfc Avwhc, Scaiiie. WashiitiUen -3StS4-200K 2B6-.W,7WPax"W i S RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its GedeiaJ Objections and Additional Objections listed above in connection, with its subsequent, responses. Defendant further objects on the grounds that "hot tops5' is a generic term with several meanings and thus this Interrogatory is 4 technically tmanswcrabfe Defendant fm-ther objects as this Interrogatory is not limited in time 5 or scope to the time periods o r locations related to this lawsuit. Defendant further objects as 6 IfiaMiffs have provided no evidence that Mr. Turner ever worked with, or in the vicinity of, any 7 products manufactured, sold, or distributed by Defendant. Therefore, this Interrogatory is overly 8 broad, unduly burdensome, and not designed to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence, 9 Without waiving its objections, Defendant did manufacture and sell Cerium asbestos'-coniainiiig 10 refractory products for use with hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle at various times during the n years 1970 to 1976. 12 3. if your answers to interrogatories No. 1 or 2 are anything other than, an -unqualified "no", please describe with particularity every asbestos-eontaining hot top product, that you 13 manufactured, assembled, sold, supplied, or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce during the years 1970 to i976, include in your answer the brand name and/or model name of 14 the product, its physical description and its asbestos content (percentage and fiber type). 15 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos, 1 and 2. Without waiving its 16 17 objections. Defendant may have manufactured and sold the following asbestos-containing products to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, WA from 1970 to 1976: 18 19 Ecrroboard Liners 20 Certain Ferroboard Diners contained 6% amosite or combination amosite and chr?settle- asbestos, depending on customer needs and requirements. Asbestos-containing Ferroboard Liners were stacked on a wooden pallet 21 22 product. Asbestos-containing Ferroboard Liners were tannish in color, brick-like in texture, rectangular in form which varied hi length and width depending upon the size of the Hot Top and were manufactured with crease lines for folding the finer into the proper shape. There were 24 no markings on this product other than product number. 25 4. If your answer to interrogatory Ho. 2 is anything other than an unqualified "no", please list the suppliers of the asbestos fibers incorporated Into your hot top products during the years 26 1970 to 1976. LfcAifotm- FtRsxNraRaof.;Atoaiss:AN&rlouests roj?rRotmcmoN: or OOOUMENTSTODUrEtiDAim MSteWESERVICESOW-PAKY, Lie. wttsofiNomKfiiuuo uiviSjOH(mcoa:Rf?cn.,y namh?as oglcsay NOSTONCOMPANYWITHAN8WK8S- 8 rKayaNMoaruy Wallace, p.l.l.c: 90 >FiSilf AvwiW. Suite 3S00 SaKfe, W;vSiijngtmr9!tH54'2!!0S i : RESPONSE: 'See objeetiol to interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. 2 objections. Dfaillant responds as follows: Without waiving its 3 in general, asbestos fibers contained in certain of Defendant's products were purchased 4 fo ra Carey Canadian, Canadian ichns-Manviile Corporation, National Gypsum, North American Asbestos Corporation. Clark Asbestos and International Fiber Carp, 5 5. Describe the expected use o f your hot top products by your customers, 6 7 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving its : objections. Defendant responds as follows: Some asbestos-containing Ferro board Liners m a y 9 have been used to line the inside of certain hot top castings. iO 6. Do you contend that the asbestos-containing hot tops that you manufactured or otherwise placed in the stream o f commerce were not "friable" and/or did not re lease respirable asbestos fibers during their expected use? if yes, please describe the factual and scientific basis for that contention. .12 13 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving its 14 objections, Defendant responds as follows; Fertohoard liners were a refectory hoard product 15 and no significant dust would have been created in Us normal use. 16 7. When did you learn that asbestos was hazardous to human health? 1 7 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant further objects to ||| the form o f this Request in. that it assumes that the release o f dust and/or fibers was inherent with lb use o f Defendant's products, and that Defendant's products presented a hazard. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this Request assumes that Defendant had control o f such i l products and their use after leaving Defendant's possession, which, it did not. Further, these 22 products were sold to sophisticated: companies who controlled the workplace and its employees. 23 Defendant also objects on the grounds that at no time was Plaintiff .Tarnes fumer employed by 24 this Defendant, Accordingly, this Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and 25 seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 26 Rt>Ai0.5S4i4)OCX'ift<52S:65!XJJ!i< e t . t f e f j f e >F f m % i s t x o ^ of coM CNTs i-'URRomstKumtm oiv^m m k m B s m y m s c o m p a n y , .o . w&im asoaesAY NOfttON e o M w m v w i t h a n s w e r s a o o N m u r p h y iv a u -a c i-, f .u , c . mi scatii, sb& s m i admissible evidence, Without waiving its objections, and to die best of this .Defendant's 2 knowledge, information and belief the late Jantes Bognar of Ferro Engineering's research 3 department learned that asbestos fibers posed a possible risk of asbestosis to asbestos miners in 4 the late 1960s m early 1970s. According to earlier deposition testimony of Mr, Bognar, at no 5 time did Dtendant believe that the asbestos content in Defendant's products was hazardous. 6 f urther. Defendant possesses articles from the Times of London from 1966. Defendant has no 7 reason to believe that receipt of the articles, which speak for themselves, was in m y way B "notice" as to any potential increased risk of any health hasards related to Defendant's products, 9 Also, there is a oned ine reference to asbestosis hi the minutes of a 1969 Engineering Department iO meeting. Such reference was non-specific and does not appear directed toward any Ferro n Engineering Division product or process. Defendant has no further information concerning these 12 minutes dr any discussion that took place at the meeting. Defendant has no information feat S3 indicates Defendant, ever believed that the proper use of any of its asbestos-containing products 14 potentially posed any increased risk or any health hazards from the use of the products, 1J| 8. Did warnings or instructions of any kind accompany any of your hot top products described in: your answer to Interrogatory No. 3? If yes, please describe the content o f the I warning or instruction. u RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 ant! 2. Without waiving its objections, in 1971 Defendant commenced a labeling program using the following label: s ; "Caution contains asbestos fibers - avoid creating dust - breathing asbestos dust may cause 20 serious bodily harm." It is believed that the color of the label was in red and that the label was 21 approximately 2 inches by 2 inches in size. The label was in conformance with federal SI regulations. There is no record of the precise dates o f implementation of the caution label with 23 regard to individual products. Defendant has no information as to persons involved in drafting 24 the language used in the caution label, although to the best of Defendant's knowledge, 2' information and beliefthe language chosen was in conformance with federal regulations. 2o mA-MXKOCKXvtiiitaMtmfA. OPLFAfXINXTXiFSFMS' mFIRS ST I TO NTERit DEFEN OG DA AT NT Ofti ON eS M AND ARIN REQUESTS FOR PRODU E SER VICES COMPANY, CTION U .C , FERRO ENOINEEWNO DVfSjOM (NCORRECTCV NAMBO AS 0 0 U :3 A Y NORTON COMMPY W iT b ANSWERS 10 OODSN MURPHY WALLACE. P.L.LC 901 Fi8h Avenue, Suife 3500 St8lc. Wishing M i*-20M WAVM S 9. Dio you ever warn any of jour customers about the hazards of asbestos at arty time? Why or why not? 3 RESPONSE: See objections and response to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2 and 8, Without 4 !waiving Ms objections, Defendant never believed asbestos, as used in byproducts, created any j increased health daks from the use of its products to its customers. 10. Provide the names o f each individual who provided information to answer these | interrogatories, 8 RESPONSE: Dennis H. Markusson, Esq., of Markusson, Green & Jarvis, P.C., 9 950 17lh Street, Suite 1050, Denver, Colorado 80202. Ferro Engineering Division's National 10 Coordinating Counsel, who has Reid this position since March 2002, supervised the answering of U these Interrogatories and Requests-for Production by Bruce inghs, CFO o f ON Marine Services 12 Company, LLC, Mr. Ingles' answers are based solely upon documents and information made 13 available to him by others and upon which he relied. 14 11. Provide the names and contact information (if known) o f each person who you believe may possess information regarding the use of asbestos in your hot top products in the 1970s. 15 16 RESPONSE: Bill Gabriel, consultant and former employee. Mr. Gabriel can be 17 contacted through National Coordinating Counsel. $ 12. Provide the names and contact, information (if known) of each person who you believe may possess information regarding your sale/suppiy of hot top products to Bethlehem Steel in 19 the 1970s. 20 RESPONSE: See response to Interrogatory No. I t. 21 13. Provide the names o f each trade or professional organisation that you were a member of prior to 1976. 22 23 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without: Waiving its 24 objections, Defendant states that it recently became aware o f documents that indicate that 25 Defendant was a member of the American. Ceramic Society during life years 1942, 1944, IMS* 26 1.947-1949, 1951, 1958 and 1961, Prior to becoming aware of said documents. Defendant had PLiNTtiTS; isten (MhRtoGATORigs and rsouskts for froduction or documents to erenowf on marine services comp any, u a FERROSNO-NCERiNd OiViSlpN{INCORRECTLYNAMEDAS OGLE8AV NORTON COMPANY W ITH ANSWERS ! i OGDSN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. Stfi Fifth Avsaac-, Safe.>560 Seattle, Washfeglott % \ Tet. te6.447.70(Wiim u - sms I no knowledge that it may have been a member o f the American Ceramic Society. Defendant 2 farther states that based pen records io which Defendant was referred, it appears for the years 3 i960 to 1962, 1964., and 1968 to 1970 Robert E. ICratzerL Vessel Personnel Manager tor the 4 Columbia Transportation Division, was a member of the National Safety Council. The 5 Columbia Transportation Division was a separate entity from the Defendant Ferro Engineering 6 Division. Defendant also states that it was recently referred to a document that indicates that ? Qglebay Norton Company, which as a result o f a series of mergers is now ON Marine Services 8 Company, LLC, was a member of the National Safety Council from 1949 to 2065. Defendant 9 Ferro Engineering was not a member o f the National Safety Council. Further, Defendant was a 10 member of the iron and Steel institute. Defendant is unaware o f the exact dates o f its I t membership. 12 14. When was the first time that a person brought a lawsuit against yon for allegedly causing an asbestos-related injury? 13 14 RESPONSE; See olrjeciioh to Interrogatory Nos, 1 and 2, Additionally, this 15 Interrogatory is not related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, therefore, overly broad, 56 unduly burdensome and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 1? ]S. When was the first time that air employee or former employee brought a claim against you ibr compensation for an injury allegedly related to asbestos? 18 19 RESPONSE: See objection to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Additionally, this 20 interrogatory is not related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, therefore, overly broad, 21 unduly burdensome and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 22 16. Prior to 1976, did you ever employ an industrial hygienist or someone similar charged safety -ft.yriigr w m p m fT if yes, please provide the indm dualfsf namc(s), job 23 description, and contact information. 24 25 26 !*?<!(.copes'.tzm wxa>\ n j m i m ' f m t M im m A -K m es A m g y u ssrs *or pwoductkm of o o co sd p m trfo o g r rs m m t onmarbsu uo. FERROHHOlNaBKlOOOVSON {NCQRSiXTLY NAMBO AS OOLEBY POR'ONCOf.'PAN'i VVItH AN'ttv?i<S- ? oootm M m m nvw A ri.A s& i'L .L .c stu r i Averne Suite v m TeSlea2tftlec. <<50i , 0o*4? 0VI RESPONSE: See objection to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, Additionally, this interrogatory is not related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, therefore, overly broad, 1unduly burdensome and not designed to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. 17. Did you ever sell, supply, and/or distribute equipment used to make hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, Washington prior to 1976? If yes, please describe the equipment and how it was used, 6 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos, 1, .2 and 3. Without waiving its 7 objections, Defendant manufactured and sold certain asbestos-containing products for use with 8 hot tops at. Bethlehem, Steel in Seattle, Washington prior to 1.976. 9 10 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 11 1, Produce every document, in your possession or control that relates or refers to any sale/suppfy of hot tops that you made to Bethlehem Steel in. Seattle, Washington during the 12 years 1.970 to 1976. 13 RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its General Objections and Additional Objections 14 listed above in connection, with its subsequent responses. Defendant further objects to this 15 Request for Production on the grounds that, according to deposition testimony, Mr. Turner never 16 worked with any of Defendant's products. Accordingly, this Request seeks information that is 1? neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to load to the discovery o f admissible evidence. 18 Without waiving its objections, Defendant states that it maintains and will produce copies of the 19 20 Ferro Engineering Division's "in-road hooks" sales records for sales o f its asbestos-containing refractory products sold to Bethlehem Steel, Seattle, WA, during time period 1970 to 1976. 21 Additionally, Defendant states that it possesses and will produce copies of representative "mix 22 formulas" for any asbestos-containing products listed in the objections and answers to 23 interrogatory No. 3. The mix formulas are exemplars o f those used for the manufacture of Ferro 24 Engineering Division products. Defendant manufactured its products to each of its customers' 25 own needs and requirements, which were dependent upon many factors, including but not 26 HiiA ii.i.OCX;.:v:i" 3:r;WtVA and req u ests for pr o d u ch o n o f d o c u m e n t s t o d e f e n d a n t o n m a r in e s e r v i c e s c o m f a n y , u ,c , FtUtRO ENtoiNEERiNG DIVISION (IHCORUEGTi.Y NAMED AS iXii.KSA Y NORTON COMMNY W M ANSW ERS- 13 OODS'KH)Mi FOifRthPAtSvyeWnuAe,US.tAittOs E?$,CP0X.L.C, Sea!, .WashHig&tiSiSl S4-J.)S 'M: TOAW.XVO/fev 'mMi.m.n  limited to the customers' specific yield requirements. Defendant possesses no tnibrniation by 7 which it may determine whether the mix formulas in its possession are in feet the exact mix 3 formulas used for the production of each product as listed in Its answer to Interrogatory 3. 4 Additionally. Defendant will produce representative product catalogs relevant to Defendant's 5 asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold to Bethlehem Steel, Seattle, WA, front 1970 6 to 1976, 7 Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to communications between you and Bethlehem Steel regarding your saJs/supply of hot tops S during the years 1970 to 1976. 9 RESPONSE: See objections and answers to Request for Production No. 1 and 10 Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving its objections. Defendant is unaware of any such 1 documents. However, documents may exist responsive to this request in Defendant's document 12 storage facility at Iron Mountain in Cleveland, OH. Plaintiffs may inspect such documents upon 13 reasonable request. 14 15 3. Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to asbestosrelated human health hazards. 16 17 RESPONSE: Sec objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2 and 7. Without waiving these objections, Defendant will produce the articles and meeting minutes referenced in Interrogatory 18 No. 7, 19 4. Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to 20 communications prior to 1976 on the subject o f the government's regulation of asbestos. 21 RESPONSE; Sec objections and answers to Request for Production No. 1 and 22 Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving its objections. Defendant is unaware of any such 23 documents. However, documents may exist responsive to this request in Defendants document 24 storage facility at Iron Mountain in Cleveland, OH. Plaintiffs may inspect such documents upon 75 reasonable request. 26 i;aiiaU!tecx,4ur>viiw}i w a n t s f f s 4p r s jmuRROOirmsBS a n d a n q v e s T S r o R m io o c n O N or OCUMBNTS TO OSfBfiOAUT Ofi MARINE S.RViCS COMPANY, L ife P ^ R O 'B iQ iH ta im sra fti^ K ,mAmMfD-Sia3iJAY NORTON COMPANY W ITH ANSWERS - M OOgN MPRFHY WALA8,AUI,:C 9 Fifth vm, Sute 3500 Seaiie, Wasiiigtort;9?ii4-2Gfi8 Tel: m i.T m iftK . 206.447.ai 1 5. Produce all mocrds in your possession or control dial refer or relate to any claims tiled or made by your employees or fanner employees for compensation relating to asbestos-related 2 injuries or illnesses. 3 RESPONSE: See objections to Request for Production No. I and Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2 4 and .15. Additionally, this Request is not related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, 5 therefore, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not designed to lead to the discovery of 6 admissible evidence. 7 6. Produce all records in your possession or control that refer or relate to your 8 procurement of asbestos-containing materials for incorporation into your hot top products dating the years 1970 to 1976. 9 10 RESPONSE: See objections and answers to Request, for Production No. 1 and 11 Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, Without waiving its objections, Defendant is unaware of any such 12 documents. However, documents may exist responsive to this request in Defendants document 1.3 storage facility at Iron Mountain in Cleveland. DPI. Plaintiffs may inspect such documents upon 14 reasonable request. IS 7. Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to any sale/snpply of equipment used to make hot tops that you made to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, 16 Washington during the. years 1970 to 1976. 17 RESPONSE: See objections to Request for Production No. 1 and interrogatory Nos. 1. 18 and 2. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is nonsensical and cannot be 19 answered. Defendant never sold, any equipment used to make hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in 20 Seattle, Washington. It did sell products to Bethlehem Steel that may have been used in. 21 connection, with the use of hot tops. Without waiving its objections, attached as Exhibit A (Bates 22 Nos. OMWOOOO1-00043) are documents that pertain to products that Defendant may have 23 manufactured and sold to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, Washington during the years 1970 to 1976, 24 as well as documents pertaining to the Fcrroboard product lines. Discovery is still continuing in 25 this case and these documents may be supplemented as discovery continues. 26 3Atbssi': uocxwift535<.tm PLAINtiFFS' FIRST ir-iTCitKOGATORiUS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OP DOCUMENTS TO DEPENDANT ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY. U C . PiiliKP BNGiNEKRiNaOfViSiON ONCORRGCTLY NAMED ASOGLBBAY NORTON COMPANY W lltl ANSWERS -15 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE'. P.L.L.C. 90! Fifth A w f . Suite 3500 S8Bte, W8fih6iglC9iilMU00S Tel: W M 1.W M % *. 206.441<15 2013. The undersigned attorney has mad the foregt discovery requests, and they comply with CR 26(g), OGDEyN MURPHY m to these Robert G. Andre, WS8A #13072 Counsel for Defendant On Marine Services Company, LLC Ferro 8: Engineering Division (IncOfrecUy named as 9 Oglebay Norton Company) 10 n it u 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PLAINTIFFS' HRST ifgK SO G A .tO R i6S AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Oi: DOCUMENTS TO DEPENDANT ON MARINE SSRViCES COMPANY. iXC. PSPROSNOtNEERlNC? V ISIO N ONCQRft.f.CTLY NAMED AS G0M3BAY NORTON COMPANYAVIT ANSWERS *IE OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE P LX 90j r is * Avcmte ShSc *509 m W Seattle. WasWigto 9 tu i-7 m 'tei 206.44? "000.%' 9215 AFi'<m4Vfr STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) SS- COUNTY OF AT.LBGBENY ) 8EUCB INGIiS. Chief Bnanfeial Officer of ON Marios Services Conipaoy> a De!aware limited linbiKty company, and designated fey ON Mann Servicer, Company. LLC, te execute the answers and responses: to these answers and objections to Plaintiffs1First Intenxigatorfes aaii Requests for .Production of Documents based upon information, or documents made available to him fey others and upon which he relied, and feeing first duly sworn on oath and deposes and states that he bus read the foregoing answers add objections to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Requests for .Pirxiucitdn of 'Documents, end that the- statements of fact contained in the attached answers and objections to Plaintiffs* First Interrogatories and Requests for Production, of Documents are tree and correct to the best of iris iMonnntion, knowledge and belief. P 1% / " A r > l / , S4t-'-'?A *& Brace Indis SUBSGRiRBU AND SWORN TO before me on 2813, A day of gQMHOtW/fAt.Tti OP S^ S V I V x M A ifeiflHalSest | ^roia^a, 8tjryfvri\ Tfr4jVyeg,-ftfiitor,aeSnA --i sK iW i* 5 * s w / y ' .______ s / PriiSeilfe ^ NiVOUTvAURvYi.PiUvBX5LJu-I;LC^-`iJniiaitntidifwo.ri tuhIeCS>taUtwe3of ... IKa iB . .< U s A / ...,, .......... My Coifnhisskm Expires: -<Yv^P- / 7 ;on < rnA)wnnp3`xansrimmarxsAaoRtcsrA^momqorausroa esoDua-io on eo.cuMaro's morrKHiJAm'ONMA!! if<nxsu iN ia st c.OM?Am;, llc, m m 3 nddntEsssxft jtvisxon (ttiE ounarm w AHGo as oolesav rngmi coMnAiYtvfrtiAtmvsns-tt OODBNSiUiienVWALLA.CttKU.X. SO! aiidJ Avsme, Saite 3500 SosBfc,msWn&os $m s m v&'mMtvmimi tis&A&ms 1 2 \ 4 5 6 ' : V 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON M AND FOR KING COUNTY 9 JAMES B. TURNER and JOANNE Kl. .UPSON 10 husband and wife. ) NO. 13-2-17075-2 SEA ) 11 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS' FIRST INTERROGATORIES 1 AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 12 v. ) DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT ON ) MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, 13 FRASER'S BOILER SERVICE, INC,, ei a l, ) FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION Defendants. ) (INCORRECTLY NAMED AS OGLEBAY ) NORTON COMPANY) WITH ANSWERS ) IS 16 TO: ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION 17 AND TO: Counsel for Defendant ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION 18 YOU ARE HEREBY SERVED with Plaintiffs' First Set of IntetTogatories and Requests 19 for Prockiotlim of DoGuments propounded to Defendant ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, 20 asbestos litigation in this jurisdiction. Please type the answers in the space provided, adding 2 i additional pages if necessary. Return the original to the office o f Plaintiffs' attorney, BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG. 614 First A w e , 4th Floor, Seattle, Washington, 98164.' 23 23 24 25 26 SCA(0SW!)i 'A l K n ?SvF !R S tiN >ri-R R iX M 'rri8fliS AND REQUESTS FOR SROOUCTSON OP O O C U M S N liT O DEPENDANTON MARiNP SERVICES COMPANY. U..C. miRb iihdiNasfuRGonvision itwhoRuxetfcVname asooor.Vy NORTONCOMPANYWITHANSWERS- t OGDEN MORPHY WAU;ACB,P.MuC, 90! ''Pifib A m ine, Sii-itoSiee. Sisirttlc, Wnstwgftvi 9Mi*!-.5.0<)S Tei: S0644'/ i>2i5 1 INSTRUCTIONS 1. These discovery requests are vo be regarded as coatnoing ia atee, and You must supplcmen: Your responses pmmptlyifi You obain addMonal or differet material before tria! n this adion. 4 2. These discovery requests cover ail documents and M arm ate within the possession, custody, or control of, or reasonably available to, the responding defendant and its 5 predecessor, successor, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, :servants, attorneys, assigns, or any other representatives. 6 3, If any response, or portion thereof, is withheld or objected to on the basis of a 7 claim of privilege or for m y other reason, identify, with enough particuiarity to support a motion to compel, the discovery request for winch the response, or portion thereof, has been 8 withheld or objected to, the information: that has been withheld or objected to, the specific claim or privilege or other reason for withholding the information and the basis for Your claim. Ci 4. For each document produced m response to a discovery request, indicate on the 10 document or in some other reasonable manner the number o f the request(s) to which it responds. U 3. i f anything is deleted from a document produced in response to a discovery 12 request, indicate the tact of deletion cm tire face of the document and state in Your: response to such request: O (A) the reason for the deletion; and 14 (B) the subject matter of the deletion. 15 6. If any document otherwise responsive to any request is withheld under claim of privilege, formsh a list containing for each such document the following information: 16 (A) the date of the document i >/" (B) the name and title of its author(s); (C) the name and title o f each person to whom it was addressed; 18 (D) the name and ti tle o f each person, to whom it was sent; (E) the name, and title of each, person to whom itwas disclosed in whole or in part; 19 (F) the num ber of pages; (G) a brief description of its subjset matter; 20 (S) the request to which it is. otherwise responsi ve; and (!) the nature o f the claimed privilege. 2.1 7, For any documents produced in response to a request that are not now within the 22 defendants possession, custody or Control, state in such response in whose possession, custody or control such documents may he found, if a document responsive to a request no longer 23 exists, identify it and explain the circumstances of its loss or destruction, if no documents exist that are responsive to a request, so state. 24 8. Discovery requests calling for numerical or chronological information shall be 25 deemed, to the extent that the precise figures or dates are not known, to cat] for estimates. In each instance in which M estimate is given, identify it as such and specify the source of 26 information and the basis for the estimate. n.xm n i w sih st m rK K m O V foRm s awo req u ests for pro d u ctio n OF O O C O M 'K fS t O OESBNOAHT ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY. L IC . FERRO CNOiNtjBRN& Di VfSiON UNCORKECU.Y MAMES AS OGLEB.Y norion company wrm answers - OODFj.MUiOmYWi.i.ACB, P.LL. 90 Pili Avsmui, Suis Siiii ?.iviie, Wsw\i#f981UCOS T?i: m M . i m i a x : m W . S g l 9. All discovery requests which are slated in the conjxmstive are to be read as if also stated in the dis}uactive, and vice versa ti.e,, answer each request as if requiring an "and/or" response). Similarly, in ail discovery requests, the singular form of a noun is to be read as including the plural form, and vice versa, and all verbs shall be construed to include ail tenses. 10. Unless otherwise specified, thepetriimode for each discovery request shal: include the period from 194(1 to 1979. 11. Pursuant to Rule 33(a), these interrogatories are to he answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless objected to, in which event the reasons for objection are to he stated in lieu of an answer in accordance with Instruction 3 above. The answers are to be signed by the person malting them and the objections signed by the attorney making them. 12. Where an interrogatory requests the identity of each person wi th responsibility over certain matters, the request shall be deemed to include each person, other than those with wholly clerical duties, who has responsibility over the: matter. The request shall not be limited to the head of a department. division or branch, hut shall, include subordinate employees other 1 0 than clerical staff who have responsibility over the matter. u 13. Where an Interrogatory seeks identification of documents, the defendant may in lieu thereof attach a copy o f the document(s) to its response to the Interrogatory pursuant to 12 Rule 33(e) o f the Civil Rules, For each document produced, indicate on the document or in some other reasonable manner the interrogatory to which it responds. 13 14. If any interrogatory cannot, be answered fully, provide as complete an answer as 14 possible, state the reason tor the inability to provide a complete answer, and provide any information, knowledge or belief defendant has regarding the portion unanswered. 15 15. This discovery request requires production o f drafts o f documents covered by a 16 request as well as all non-identical copies of the documents, e.g.,, they would require the production of a draft letter,, the letter as sent and a copy of that letter on which there are 17 additional markings or writings. 18 DEFINITIONS 19 Unless otherwise defined herein, the following definitions apply to these discovery request^: 20 1, " You" means defendant ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC FERRO 21 ENGINEERING DIVISION, its officers, directors, employees, parent corporations, subsidiary 22 corporations, affiliates, predecessors in interest, including specifically LINK-BELT CORPORATION, agents, consultants, contractors, attorneys, representatives, turd all other 23 persons acting or purporting to act on behalf o f said defendant. 24 2, ;^qcyin$fi" means any and all material that is written, printed, typed, photographed, recorded (whether electrically, electronically, magnetically, graphically, or otherwise) or which is capable o f being recorded in any form, it includes,..but is not limited to papers, books, records, letters, photographs, tangible things, correspondence, communications, 26 telegrams, cables, Telex messages, memoranda, laboratory work papers, batch sheets, other p iA i N v m y r i s s r m r c u r o g a t o r i es a n d r e d u h s t s f o r j?r o d u c t (o n o r D o e i w i B f i s t o P s T N O A N r o n ^tA R iN E srarvaciA S oos#A N Y >:u . c > f;fiKRO E N G IN E S tte DiVJSiON C.WCORifefiitV MAMi.,0 AS OOLSOXY NORTON COMPANY W tT H ANSWERS - 3 GOOES MORPHY WAUACS, ?.E.i.,C SOi Fifth Avenue, Sue 3580 Sealtie, W^hhigw &St4-t03S T^m)4T70UCW3>:: m m j & 5 1 work papers, ledger sheets, transcripts, minutes, reports, and .recordings o f telephone or other conversations or o f -interviews, conferences or other meetings, affidavits, statements, 2 summaries, opinions, reports, studies, drafts, drafts o f studies, analyses, bulM ns, notices, announcements, advertisements, instructions, chart, manuals, broehtues, publications, 3 schedules, journals, statistical records, desk, calendars, appointment books, diaries, lists, logs, 4 well, logs, field logs, tabulations, sound recordings, computer files, computer tapes, computer printouts, gas chromatograms, mass spectra, data processing in-put and out-put, microfilm, $ hooks o f account, records, invoices, cheeks, notes, diagrams, maps, graphs, graphs or materials with handwriting or other printing on. them, books, library reference, textbooks, treatises, and 6 other tangible material. 7 3, ''-Component" means any internal or external part o f one of Your products, items, S or pieces of equipments even if such part was not originally manufactured by You, including but not limited to brake arid clutch friction material. 9 4. "Relate to" or "relating to" means referring to, constituting, defining, 10 concerning, containing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, illustrating, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to, u 5; "identity' or `identity" means; 12 13 (A) with respect, to a natural person, to provide the person's (i) lull name, (ii) present or last known business and home addresses and phone numbers, (in) present or last known 14 employer anti, position with that employer; and (lv) employer arid position at the time relevant to the interrogatory involved; 15 (B) With respect to an entity other than a natural person, to provide (i) the full name Of the organization or entity; (ii) the present or last known address o f tire organization or entity, 16 and (iii) the name, title and address o f its chief executive officer; 17 (C) with respect to a document, to provide the document's (i) date; (ii) author and signatory; (iii) type (e.g., letter, memorandum); (lv) title and subject matter; (v) addressee and 18 all other persons receiving copies; (vi) custodian; and (vii) its present or last known location; (D) with respect to an act, action, or activity, to provide; (i) a description o f the act 19 or activity; (ii) the date it occurred; (iii) the place it occurred; (tv) the identity o f each document relating to the act car activity; and (v) the. identity of each, person who participated or engaged in 2 0 the act or activity; 2.1 (E) with respect to a communication,, to provide; (i) the date of the comraunicatioii; (ii) the place it occurred; (iii) the identity of each person who originated, received, participated, 22 or was present during the communication: (iv) the type o f communication (e.g., letter, telegram, telephone conversation): (v) the identity of each document, relating or referring to or comprising 23 such communication', and (vi) the substance of the eomnnmicatro.n. 24 25 26 riAinfirss4wrbt iwrRjtxoG/vmnfESandrequests forfttoouonou OFOCUiUtetrSTODEFENDANTONMAitiNBSERViCESCOMPANY. Off rtamo ftoOiNur-HtooDivision <1m o NtoaBDAs ootehAY No r t o n c o m p a n y w m t a n s w s s s .- 4 OOPEN MURPHY WAIXACE, R.LL.C. toiFiai! Avenue. Suite j50C Siaiiic, W35iiBgi<a iw - i m T!: 2{i6;;i4?,7DG0/p!K: 206.**7 IS I INTERROGATORIES' affo REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION submitted this I f f day of June, 2 0 0 . 2 3 BERGMAN DRAPER LDENBURG 4 5 Vanessa fimhaber Ostafo, WSBA #38252 Counsel for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 H jjm m ' & m imtsRROTcauES'anorequestsw muuctgn m m c m s m i ro o^eiiBAsiTOKM ^RiH& m viegs company, la\ FiRO ENONESRiNCS DVtSTONOMX'RRSCTL'V NAMEDAS 0 L-EBY MORTRCO^W^mi ANSWR8- S m&m w w rc wauaTMp i ir *>j r m M m * S>iB{w^iW -2S W '6W r'2M < ' t Defendant Ferro Engineering Division of ON Marine Services Company. IXO, a 2 Delaware hunted liability company (Defendant, incorrectly named in the Plaintiffs' Complaint 3 as Ogiebay Norton Company fok/'a Ogiebay Norton Engineered Materials, a/k/a ON Marine 4 Services, foe,, and its division The Ferro Engineering Division, by and through its undersigned 3 attorneys, hereby submits the following answers and objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of 6 7 Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the above-named Defendant. 8 9 At no time did Defendant manufacture, sell, distribute or supply any asbestos-containing 10 products, other than through its former division, Ferro Engineering. Any and ail products, I f including those containing asbestos, were manufactured by and sold through the. Ferro 12 Engineering Division, Defendant therefore responds to Plaintiffs' first Set of interrogatories and 13 14 | Requests for Production o f Documents on behalf of its former division, Ferro Engineering. 15 Notwithstanding the above, Defendant objects to the following First Set of interrogatories and 1:6 Requests for Production insofar as they seek information which is subject to attorney-client 1 7 privilege or work-product doctrine, or which is otherwise not discoverable under the provisions 1 8 of the Washington Rules o f Civil Procedure. Defendant also objects to any interrogatories and 19 Requests for Production that seek production of any information consisting of a trade secret, 20 confidential fnmneiai data or other confidential, research, development or commercial 21 22 information. Discovery is still continuing in this case and Defendant will supplement its answers 23 as any additional information becomes available. 24 | ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS 25 Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production are directed to 26 Ogiebay Norton Company a/k/a Ogiebay Norton Engineered Materials, a/k/a ON Marine KiJ iqDOCX.'<\i3 5 M W 1 ' RAJHTtFPS- H a s t iUTtvRRtXjA'i'ORlES ANT) REQUESTS FOR rtSODUCTiON OP DOCUMENTS TO OEEBNDANT ON MARINE SBKViCBS COMPANY, Lt,C, PSRP.Q fetUiNBfiiUriO DiViSiON (INC O roU iC m /r NAMED AS OOI.B8AY NORTON COMPANY WITS! ANSWERS 6 OGDEN MURPHY WAUACE- R U C 901 Pifft Avenue S afe W WaviirgrrT9R10-1-2SOS Tel: 2 ^ 4 4 * T O ttffsx: 206.447.0215 1 Services, lnc,, and its division. The Ferro Engineering Division. Plaintiff has improperly named 2 Oglebay Norton Company as a defendant. The proper entity is Ferro Engineering Division of 3 ON Marine Services Company. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, which is a wholly 4 owned subsidiary o f Ggleb&y Norton Company, LLC, art Ohio limited liability company. 5 Present-day Oglebay Norton Company had no involvement in any activities relating id Plaintiffs1 6 claims and holds no legal liability for any &ehvitfe of the Perm Engineering Division of ON 7 Marine Services Company, LLC, Accordingly, the First Set of interrogatories and Requests for 8 Production are improperly Issued to Oglebay Norton Company, which is not in a position to 9 respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The proper party 10 to which such Interrogatories and Requests for Production should be directed is the Ferro U Engineering Division of ON Marine Services Company, LLC, which entity hereby responds to 12 Plaintiffs' First Set o f Interrogatories and Requests for Production as follows: 13 INTERROGATORIES 14 1. Did you ever sell, supply, and/or distribute hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, 15 Washington during the years 1970 to 1976? 16 RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates its General Objections and Additional Objections 17 listed above in connection with its subsequent responses, Defendant further objects on the 18 grounds that "hot tops" Is a generic term with several meanings and thus this Interrogatory is 19 technically unanswerable. Defendant further objects as Plaintiffs have pro vided no evidence that 20 Mr. Turner ever worked with, or in the vicinity of, any products manufactured, sold or 21 distributed by this Defendant. Therefore, this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, 22 and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its 23 objections. Defendant did manufacture and sell certain asbestos-containing products for use wife 24 hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle at various times during the years 1970 to 1976. 2S 2. Did you ever manufacture, assemble, sell, supply, or otherwise, put in the stream of 26 commerce hot tops that contained asbestos after 1969? KCiA:*S>4O.OOfV;*: ) ( ) 0N U ri-A iN -rm rS' H R S? tNTERROGATORiESANO REQUESTS SOS. PRODUCTION o r DOCUMENTS TO DEPENDANT MARINE SERVICES COMPANY. X , FERRO ENGINEERING DtViSlON UNCOS RECTOY NAMED AS OUi.KEAY NORTON COMPANY W m t ANSW ERS- 7 vinuc. OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P U SCI O h A Siw 5508 L C Scauis \VaVihvAO93iM-?0tiis T ot JGE.447.7000/kK lCA.447.mi5 listed above in connection with its subsequent responses. Defendant ferther objects on the years 1970 to 1976. 3. if year answers to interrogatories No. I or 2 are anything ether than .an uiiquaied "rio", please describe with particularity every asbestos-containing hot top product, that you mamrtaeiured, assembled, sold, supplied, or Otherwise placed in the stream of commerce during the years 1970 to 1976. Include in your answer the brand name and/or model name of the product, its physical description and its asbestos content (percentage and fiber type). RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos, 1 and 2. Without waiving its objections. Defendant may have nianafaetured and sold the following asbestos-containing products to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle. WA from 1970 to 1976; Ferroboard Liners and chrysotile asbestos, depending on customer needs and requirements. Asbestos-containing Ferroboard Liners were stacked on a wooden pallet then covered with a 6 mil shrink wrap. Shipping labels with the designation " C&D" and "Ferro Engineering" may have accotnpamed the product. Asbestos-eontaming Ferroboard Diners were tanmsh in color, brick-like in texture, rectangular in form which varied In length and width depending upon, the size of the Hot Top and were manufactured with crease lines for folding the finer into the proper shape. There were no markings on this product other than product number. list the suppliers of the asbestos fibers incorporated into your hot top producs during the years 1970to 1976. 0 0 ! u m vm Wallace, p.u ,.c 90 >Filil AvOiu, SieOSOO Seatte, 9<4'2!<! f*i; rr.w47.r)fK!/r:v. m m sm i i RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving its 2 objections, Defendant responds as fellows: 3 in general, asbestos fibers contained in certain of Defendant's products were purchased 4 from Carey Canadian, Canadian Johns-Manville Corporation, National Gypsum, North American Asbestos Corporation, Clark Asbestos and International Fiber Corp. 5 6 5. Describe the expected use o f your hot top products by your customers, 7 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and % Without waiving its S abjections. Defendant, responds as follows: Some asbestos-containing Ferrohoard Liners may 9 have been used to line (he inside o f certain hot top castings, 10 ;>, Do you contend that the asbestos-containing hot tops th a ty o u manufactured or otherwise placed in the stream o f commerce were not "friable" and/or did not release respirable I I asbestos fibers during their expected use? I f yes, please describe tire factual and scientific basis for that < 12 B RESPONSE: See objections to Interidgatory Nos. 1 and % Without waiving its 14 objections, Defendant responds as follows: Ferroboard liners were a. refractory board product 15 and no significant dust would have been created in its normal use. 1:|: 7. When did you learn that, asbestos was hazardous to human health? 17 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant further objects to ijj the form o f this Request in. that it assumes that the release of dust and/or fibers was inherent with 19 use o f Defendant's products, and that Defendant's products presented a hazard. Defendant 20 further objects on the grounds that ibis Request assumes that Defendant had control of such ff products and their use after leaving Defendant's possession, which it did not. Further, these 22 products were sold to sophisticated companies who controlled the workplace and its employees. 23 Defendant also objects on the grounds that at no time was Plaintiff James Turner employed by 24 this Defendant, Accordingly, this Request Is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and 25 seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 26 SH-ArnTtri's' rrnsr ivrnROGrctfUfis At'D SC0OSSTS fox imoDocriOK o r n o c u M s n rs to ohfenoan? OR m a r N p sria v ic n s com pany, u a m t f sfiOiNEeRiNO a i v i s i o u u n d o R a a c n , ? n a m b d a s o q c e s a y NOa tO N COMPANY' W ITH ANSWERS - 3 m OQDM MURPHY WA Si till Aviims. U ,ACS:, R.U..C: Sute 3500 i&i.temm Mk, Wt msstMiingwwnZSsS&I Ww .Wm n 1 admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, aiid to the best of: this Defendant's 2 knowledge, information and belief fee late James Bognar of Ferro Engineering's research 3 department learned feat asbestos fibers posed a possible risk o f asbestosis to asbestos miners in 4 the late 1960$ or early 1970s. According to earlier deposition testimony o f Mr. Bognar, at no .5 time did Defendant believe feat fee asbestos content in Defendant's products was hazardous, 6 further, Defendant possesses articles from th- Times of London from 1966. Defendant .has no ? reason to believe feat receipt of the articles, which speak for themselves. Was in any way 8 "notice" as to any potential increased risk of any health hazards related to Defendant's products. 9 Also, there is a one-line reference to asbestosis in the minutes o f a 1969 Engineering Department 10 meeting. Such reference was non-specific and does not appear directed toward any Ferro U Engineering Division -product or process. Defendant has ho further information concerning these 12 :minutes or m y discussion that took place at the meeting. Defendant has no information feat 13 indicates Defendant ever behoved that the proper use of any of its asbestos^eontsinuig products 14 potentially posed any increased risk or any health hazards froth fee use o f the products. I f 8. Did Warnings or instructions of any kind accompany any o f your hot top products described in your answer to Interrogatory No. 3? If yes, please describe the content o f the i6 warning or instruction. 7 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. I and 2. Without waiving its i>* objections, in 1971 Defendant commenced a labeling program using the following label: 19 20 "Caution contains asbestos fibers - avoid creating dust - breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm." It is belie ved that the color of the label was in red and that the label was fl j| approximately 2 inches by 2 inches in size. The label was in conformance with federal regulations. There is no record o f the precise dates of implementation of the caution label wife 23 regard to individual products. Defendant has no information as to persons involved in drafting 24 the language used in the- caution label, although to the best of Defendant's knowledge, 23 information and belief the language chosen was in conformance with federal regulations. 26 PLANii-PK' m s r iNTKRROG-rOUlS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OR DOCUMENTS TO D6FEN PART OR MARINE SERVICE!*COMPANY, U.C, FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION NGOKRfeCaVNAJRKD A3 OOCESAY NORTON COMPANY W rit) NSWSS -10 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE. RL.UC. SOI High Avenue, St:fc 3500 frttthk Washington5*164-2008 M lo&m.ioaWai- 2OA47.02IS I 9: Did you ever warn any of your customers about the hazards of asbestos at arty time? Why or why not? 2 3 RESPONSE: See objections and response to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2 and 8. Without: 4 waiving its objections. Defendant never believed asbestos, as used in its products, created any 5 increased health risks from the use of its products to its customers. 6 10. Provide ins names of each individual who provided information to answer these in te rro g a to rie s * : ? <3 RESPONSI: Dennis H. Markussoh, Esq., of Markussqn. Green & Jarvis, F.C., 9 $50 i 7*" Street, Suite 1050, Denver, Colorado 80202. Perm Engineering Division^ National 10 Coordinating Counsel, who has held this position since March 2002, supervised the answering of U these interrogatories and Requests for Production by Bruce highs, CFO of ON Marine Services 1:1 Company, LLC. Mr. Tngiis* answers are based solely upon documents and information made 13 ivailbie to him by others and upon which he relied. 14 11. Provide the names and -contact information (if known) o f each person who you believe .nay possess information regarding the use of asbestos in your hot top products in. the 1970s. 15 16 RESPONSE: Bili Gabriel, consultant and former employee. Mr. Gabriel can be 1 7 iontactd through National Coordinating Counsel. 18 12. Provide the names and Contact information (if known) o f each person who you believe pay possess information regarding your sale/suppiy of hot top products to Bethlehem Steel in 19 :he 197C 20 RESPONSE: See response to interrogatory No. 11. 21 13. Provide the names o f each trade or professional organization that you were a member ?f prior to 1976. 22 23 RESPONSE: See objections to interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, Without, waiving its 24 fojeotions, Defendant states that it recently became aware o f documents that indicate that 25 Defendant was a member o f the American Ceramic Society during the years 1942, 1944, 1945, 26 1947-.1949,1951, 1958 and 1961. Prior to becoming aware o f said documents, Defendant had :<Fi! ;-5.i^pC>r rLAitmir-TStritrsT:t<';HRR00A'r0R!Esmomxtms ras production ovnoauMENTs ro onreNO>frohmawbsbryiis company, uir; f-'KUiO OiViSlON {INGOftUCTLY MAMEO A3 'OOT.KKAY NORONCOMaAKywmt ANSWESS . u OODSN MI 5RPHY WALLACE, P..L.L.C. 901 Fifth Arsnoc, Safe SS60 Sealtic, Washragion 9S !St-?.008 Tst. M M i e m - m M r z is i no knowledge -that It may have been a .member of the American Ceramic Society. Defendant 2 further states that'based upon records to which Defendant was referred, it appears for the years 3 i960 to 1062, 1964, and 1968 to 1970 Robert E. firateert, Vessel Personnel Manager tor the 4 Columbia 'Transportation Division, was a member of the National Safety Council The 5 Columbia Transportation Division was a separate entity from the Defendant Ferro Engineering 6 Division, Defendant also states that it was recently referred to a document that indicates that ? Ogiebay Norton Company, which, as a result of a series o f mergers is now ON Marine Services 8 Company, LI,C, was a member of the National Safety Council from 1949 to 2005. Defendant. 9 Ferro Engineering was not a member of the National Safety Council. Further, Defendant was a 10 member' o f the iron and Steel Institute. Defendant is unaware of the exact dates of its 11 membership, 12 14 When was the .first time that a person brought a lawsuit against yon for allegedly causing an asbestos-related injury? 13 14 RESPONSE; See objection to Interrogatory Nos, 1 and 2. Additionally, this 15 interrogatory Is trot related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, therefore, overly broad, 16 xmduly burdensome and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, I I 15. When was the first time that an employee of former employee brought a claim against you for compensation for an injury allegedly related to asbestos? 18 19 -RESPONSE; See objection to interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Additionally, this 20 interrogatory is not related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, therefore, overly broad, 21 unduly burdensome and not designed to lead to tirediscovery of admissible evidence. 22 16. Frier to 1976, did yon ever employ an industrial hygienist or someone similar charged with health and safety at your company? If yes, please provide the individual^);5namc(s), job 23 description, and contact information. 24 2S 26 Ki/ViUSSdH.DeDe3:ift<Xa& phiUrtnrfe' rsasr if-niautoravroniKs aod recx/ests sou pRotxxmots OF BCXrDMNTS TO D M feO A rrr OUWiaUN SERVICES COMPANY, LUC. matto sngmvkru'gntvistoN nNceiumcTLYnamedas ooopY NORTON COMPANYWITH ANS$RR8 - U O & am MOigntY WAU.ACS, PX...C SOS rifili A renas, Suite 5560 TeSi:it?aMtile.iW7 aTsOltOiaOg!/fm;S2S0!66:44-H?M.feiS : 1 RESPONSE: See objection to interrogatory Nos. 1 sad X Additionally, this Interrogatory is not related lo any claim or defense in this matter and is, foerelbre, overly broad, 3 unduly burdensome and riot designed to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. 4 17. Did you ever sell, supply, and/or distribute equipment used to make hoi tops to Bethlehem Steel, in Seattle, Washington prior to 1976'? if yes, please describe die equipment 5 and now it was used, 6 RESPONSE: See objections, to interrogatory 'Nos, i, 2 and 3. Without waiving its 7 objections. Defendant nianuthctured and sold certain asbe-stos-eontaining products for use with hot'top at Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, Washington prior to 1.976. 9 10 REQUESTS FOR ERODOCTiQN l Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to any sale/suppiv of hot tops that you made to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, Washington during the 12 years 1970to 1976- 13 RBSPONSE: Defendant incorporates its General Objections and Additional Objections 14 listed above in connection with its subsequent responses. Defendant further objects to this 15 Request for Production on the grounds that, according to deposition testimony, Mr. Turner never 16 I l worked with any of Defendant's products. Accordingly, this Request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. ls Without waiving its objections, Defendant states that it maintains and. will produce copies of the 19 Ferro Engineering Division's "in-road books" safes records for sales o f its asbestos-containing 20 refractory products sold to Bethlehem Steel, Seattle, WA, during time period 1970 to 1976, 21 Additionally, Defendant states that it possesses and will produce copies of representative "mix 22 formulas" for any asbestos-containing products listed in the objections and answers to 23 interrogatory No. 3. The mix formulas are exemplars of those 'used for the manufacture o f Ferro 24 Engineering Division products. Defendant manufactured its products to each of its customers' 25 own needs and requirements, which were dependent: upon many factors, including hut not 26 P.A0S*l*.OCX;')V!iY/SOWOW l u x ntut; w ir s t iN 'iB iR 0e> vrom t;s A h o U E Q U E sferoft produoton R DOCUMENTS TO OEf-ENDNTON iUARKC SERVICES CUMRAUV, I..C, f-f-S.RO UMOiNER!N DtViSSON (fUCO<SUCT.i.V NAMED AS {XU.BAY NORTON COMRANV W ff( l ANSWERS - S3 oouKNMtfRpuymu.,ace, R in a 'XU Fifth Avenue, Sufi? 3S80 WS:eWattl.em, WMasWhinwgtoxn.92S0I.iM44-72.f-S?8,S3 I limited to the cqslopers' specific yield requirements. Defendant possesses no hdhmiafion by 2 which it may defennine whether the mix. formulas in its possession are in tact the exact mix 3 formulas used for the production of each product as listed in Its answer to Inferrogairy 3. 4 Additionally. Defendant wall produce representative product catalogs relevant to Defendant's 5 asbestos-conhhnmg products manufactured and sold to Bethlehem Steel, Seattle, WA, from 1970 6 to 1976. 7 2. Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to Communications between you and Bethlehem Steel regarding your sale/supply of hot tops 8 during the years 1970 to 1976. 9 RESPONSE: See objections and answers to Request for Production No. 1 and IQ interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving its objections. Defendant is unaware of any such ft documents, However, documents may exist responsive to this request in Defendant's document 12 storage facility at Iron Mountain in Cleveland* OB. Plaintiffs may inspect such documents upon 13 reasonable request. 14 3. Produce every document in yotir possession or control that relates or refers to asbesios- 15 relaled human health hazards. 16 RESPONSE: See objections to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2 and 7. Without waiving these 17 objections, Defendant will produce the articles and meeting minutes referenced in interrogatory 18 No. 7. 19 4. Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to 20 communications prior to 1976 on the subject of the government's regulation of asbestos. 21 RESPONSE; See objections aud answers to Request for Production No, I and 22 interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Without waiving Its objections* Defendant is unaware of any such 23 documents. However, documents may exist responsive to this request in Defendants document 24 storage- facility at Iron Mountain in Cleveland. OH. Plaintiffs may inspect such documents upon 25 reasonable request. 26 hantffv sags? avruRROUATORtESano rijqssts vox fitonooriON QV DOCUMENTS TO 8 { A H f ON MARINS SE&VTdsS COMPANY, LLC, F c a a b imoNBERit-id DivtsioN (fftajR fm cT i.y namp;o a s o g u b a v NOftTON COMPANY wmt ANSWERS - 14 ceoitN morphy w auacs, p-.ul c $05 Rif* Avm> SVte 3500 scaiic,W8siii?teY98i-uoa8 Tel 266 447 VOOO/Fbk 206 447 821*  5. Produce all records in your possession or control that refer or relate to any claims tiled or made by your employees or former employees for compensation relating to asbestos-related i injuries or illnesses. 3 RESPONSE; See objections to Request for Production No. 1 and interrogatory Nos. 1,2 4 and IS. Additionally, this Request is not related to any claim or defense in this matter and is, 5 therefore, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not designed to lead to the discovery o f 6 admissible evidence. 7 6. Produce ail records in your possession or control that refer or relate to your 8 procurement of ashestos-eontainmg materials for Incorporation into your hot top products during the years 1970 to 1976. 9 10 RESPONSE: See objections and answers to Request for Production No. 1 and 11 interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, Without waiving its objections, Defendant is unaware of a n y gnch 12 documents. However, documents may exist responsive to this request in Defendants document 13 storage facility at iron Mountain lit Cleveland, OH. Plaintiffs may inspect such documents upon 14 reasonable ruquest;, 15: 7. Produce every document in your possession or control that relates or refers to any sale/snppiy of equipment used to make hot tops that you made to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, i Washington during the. years 1970 to 1976. 17 RESPONSE; See objections to Request for Production No. 1 and Interrogatory Nos. 1 18 and % Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is nonsensical and cannot be 19 answered. Defendant never sold, any equipment used to make hot tops to Bethlehem Steel in 20 Seattle, Washington. It: did sell products to Bethlehem Steel that may have been used in 21 eonnectiou with the use o f hot tops. Without waiving its Objections, attached as. Exhibit A (Bates 22 Nos. OMWOOQ1-00043} are documents that pertain to products that Defendant may have 23 manufactured and sold to Bethlehem Steel in Seattle, Washington during the years 1970 to 1976, 24 as well as documents pertaining to the Ferroboard product lines. Discovery is still continuing in 25 this ease and these documents may be supplemented as discovery continues. 20 GOCXSftUS&i&ietm ruuNTifTS'm s r iwmacw** a no r e q u e s s for saomsenou o r DOCUMENTS TO DBRENOANTON MARINS SESViOES COMFAUY. l l A m m uiNwaufUNO. o f v si N u N c O R s n c m /r navscd m o o u e&av tid iito N c o s ran v w m i a m w s r s - 5 os?m o r pb y w a l u c e i> uc. 901 Fifth Avert, Suite J500 m m . WisMngw 9 \u~2m w . m m y M m . tm m m * ! ANS WERS AN D RESPONSES SUBMITTED this day of % 2013. The undersigned attorney has read the foregoing answers and responses to these 8 discovery requests, and they eornply with OR 26(g). 4 OGDEN MURPHY W M a B Jr A/ - 5 y/ AT 6 Robert G. Andr, WSBA #13072 7 Counsel for Defendant On Marine Servais Company, LLC Ferro 8: Engineering Division (incorrectly named as 9 Oglebay Norton Company) 1.0 n 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iiAftSS'i'i.L>OC-X.^VVrS&.C3t>fRii;i'> R . AiH'iirf-'S- FlftSr NMROGAORf-S AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ordocuments to drpengant on marine servjces company. u,e. PERRO ENSiNURlNG; DtViSfON (WCOSRBCTi.Y NAMED AS OUiB AY NORTON COMPANY WfTH ANSWERS - ifi OGDEN MORPHY WALLACE, P. L.L.C. 90! Fifth .Avenus, Suite 3500 Seattie. Waslrtigtofi 98 WOOftS J: m M l .im ttr n ?.06.4.(tzt3 I AFFIDAVIT 2 8irA.TR OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY } ) s. . ) 4 BiUJCE INGIAA. Chief Financial Officer of ON Maabe Services Com paq a Delaware 5 limited HribiBty company, and designated by ON Marine. Services CeOlpmiy. LLC, to execute 6 the answers and responses to trese answers and objections: lo Pamis>First In.tentjaalo.ties 7 Cad Requests for Produefios! of Documents based p>:u iaformaiios or doemnents made 8 available to him by others and upon which he relied, and being first drily swore on oath and deposes and states tirat he bus mad tire foregoing answers and objections to Hato.ifftp First W Intert'ogaieties and Requests tor Prc-cUiCiion of pooxamts, and that tile statements of fact 11 contained ill the attached answers and objections to Plaintiffs* First Intermptcuks and 12 Requests tor Production of Documents are tine and correct to the best of his iirformatic-n, 3 knowledge ac! belief. 4 13 16 17 18 1<5 K8WnO!Csr<fic.,tfeUfo!c. 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the S' ' * 2 ?. reaididi 22 My Commission Expires; S c a ry , /, 23 24 25 26 Utimsm'mwwimMiG&rmm.Amu^m stsm s mmertoa cMm , w z Baud a s o m s a a m o o tv is to p ( t H c o n w r u r hamo as oouoy OSTON CMPMlf t v m t AH31VK8S- ) 1 ooDB^Moartii' wAUACKimum. S05 R'* AVstuii, Sails ssoa 8e*i WasWagw 51608 iMimdj,wwis m i# m s Hxaxn-ES on isssxms of osbm v vasax mz> yfeB&o iGWfMm srm w a w o w l ______ _ n , iw s la ettandahft;. X A< Beteraba . 2 . W. Sloao C. 0. Swltfc. X. H. Given L. K. B e l l ' 5 .8 . Nereis ? , X grass i S . G. E l l i o t t ti. S, Whittle J> Cv C arp en ter N. K- GbeiSasn '<?. 11< Herron R. C. Bto y to B> B, Anthony Jy X BWJffii.' X U, hiCo G.A.B. opened che mtisg s t a t i n g c h a t B stro s ic s fe e 1968 reach ed an a l l tiree high o apj>coKiAteIy $XS>AOOsGOO, however, th e p r o f i t f a c to r was v ery d ise eu reg irig . HI views Sox JW89 were bpfciw ietfc and expressed sh e hop that vwi.Oy o f th e problaws which plag u ed f e te in 1288 w ill be reso lv e d i p she Now year. Vi.SvHv i a r e p o r tin g op 3geraciea s ta te d t h a t he p ro d u ettiai le v e ls a t Plane #1 add #2 w ere raalntain&d i n Seecraber acd chare w ere s i g n i f i c a n t i n c re a s e s in scran a x m > p a r ti c u la r l y in Che Wrap-hp t t e e t s . Eha Stoss Over, i s running t p a r t i s ! c a p a c ity and we s r e ex p e rien c in g th e usual s ta re - n o p ro b ie x s . P roduccioa sho u ld iaesa-a.eo ranfecrially wi.chia th e n ex t th re e to Sony weeks, th e Bergohw-ard Ring. p ro d u efio n i s t i l l n o t encoufaglng. however, w* a r e w eirin g .ccssso rias f o r th e tnsnhine which r h s e ld in c re a s e buy pus. *lie le y * ! o o p e ra tio n s a t B lo a t #3 i s c o n s is te n t, , 2;h a e o a s s ru e tio n hs been delayed approxIran tely t h i r t y days duo to wnaebar eohditicrae. B loat #4 is producing e ig h t Xiohra d o ily ed i# b u ild in g in v a a to r itS i She Rosa van re q u ire d & f u l l nheah out and should be in operation soon. ju.bl.R. review ed November b u sin e ss and a s tita a te d Ocean*? b u s in e s s , by a c tu a l s e le o and by fox&assst f o r each p la n t end by each product l i n e . C,15S &svo a f u l l explanation. o unusual t e s t s and ch a rg es, p a r t i c u la r ly in che Tarrcbcned product lin e . R .G .f. s t a t e d char th e r e wag ao a p p re c ia b le bhang in in v e n to ry or warehouse p r a c tis e s in c e l a s t r e p o r tin g , and c h a t th e re was no a l g a l Men a t Irsproveraaut i n p la n t overhead ehergea in ijoveasber and th a t th e rsseeraber fig u re s w are woe a v a ila b le . Ho d isc u sse d i n d e t a i l 5th e need f o r eonaidosii'tg p r ic e in e re a se a on send r in g s end th e i'acfc th a t we a r e w a itin g o ra e c u ra te c o s t fig u re s before say d e c te ic a ean s icade. y , j , . reviewed th e re p o rtin g oyaceta as i t r e la te s to th a stan d ard c o s t sp a te end S ta te d th a t th e e n t i r e B lent #1 and #2 Wat on th e d o lly p a r foiraen.ee re p o rtin g and B len t 43 would bo ready by Bah?aery 1, He waatior.ed th e d iv e r s i f i e d tr a in in g aeSaioKS and soovias which ferameo and an pervioory p erso n n e l a tte n d every o th e r wadit end f e l t th e r e was a v ery s ig n i f ic a n t tre n d o f itsproyasienfc, 8 e a ls o touched on th e methods improve* program s ta r in g chet a t th e moment th e re ware ten p ro jects w ith a p o te n tia l $58,000 actings a t a coot o f $2,500. orviwooois J.H -S . wunfeioaen fchat th e sew coding .had b* in s ta lle d ; w ith a f&fxtwm o problems-, l'hs:re hed been s e v e ra l f r u s tr a c in g dsslmy an th e res,3t o f i l l n e s s smi th e p a r t Of &# p?eiaat4l, He mentioned th e mwefcidg S ch ed u led W ith th e A ccount in g people to wore th o ro u g h ly f m iX in r ir e shea w ith Kiss-, s y s t e m had s tr e s s e d t h a t s h o ts wse a s to a d lly iaefeaisinH a n s t a f maubiae ab u lA ticiu 5i<S>T>f. gays a **aey d e t a il e d r s p a r e da tin? eo titiu u ed la b o r pswbleos and th e in e fsa su d -Seoegh&r a b sen te eism which d&y he to is te d ., to p a te , to i l l i i e s s . jia snggastgd vary ctaphacieally c h a t we s t a r t nos? to review oay la b o r ce fitv ee t and sp end nil amount a t feait each week in p c e p a ta tie n dec th e reap tag o f th e entifesscS in A ugnsi. & g en e ral iscu9.ai.on follow ed and a e e ry s tro n g easphesie was p laced on th e iw p a rta to e o f '8 h ttio , e sug g o sn io a. 3 >&<* in d ic a s e d th a t h e f e l t th e hnainens le v e l f o r IPS'! would he essen t i a l l y the: sense as 196? s a d gave h ie fo rce suit o f a i ts by p ro d u ct l i n e d o t Jan u ary 1959. He s tr e s s e d t h a t f i a t Sbsrbbnard had. HOP Hoc 'tops ware it th a t p rovided h ig h p r o f it siergla and th a t a d d itio n a l e f f o r t would he co u o en trsted oa th o s e lis a s . S.HkAt ad v ised t h a t S n g in aerln g is re o a iv io g tore fed bank fires: customers oa new designs and in d io a te d th a t th e re was en i n t e r e s t i n th e p are o f th e customers i n th e p o s s ib le m ocW olsasioa o f.-th e Q u isk lih e Hot 1'op. sn-i t h a t we hod raeciv ed iaiuirios end toguests for additional hAr-dling weans, J.C .ih ag ain d isc u sse d th e probles; re la te d to ostothownie topping and gov in fo rm a tio n reg ard in g our p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f a c q u irin g th e o u tp u t o f A lton in Oswego, f u r t h e r in v e s s ig a tio n i s n e c e s sa ry as wo have n o t b eard hack fro th e in caraiediary ir. t h i s p r o je c t, He a ls o r e p o rte d th a t owe p resto s was b eing made hut l o t o f ' ' a d d itio n a l in v e s tig a tio n was aaceo aary w ith reapeefc to th e p o s s ib le new ty p e bochlsg f o r J*arrohoard liu o rs S h are was q u ite a d isc u ssio n on. th e u se o f a s b e sto s and th e p r o b le to r e la te d to e s b e s ro s ib dud r e s p ir a to r y ailm ew to, Shore was a disfeussRlcn in v o lv in g th e r e c a n t v i s i t to g o lia u to hnauarob by J.C.Cv and e.W.H. ii.li.c . pave h i s r e p o r t on n g if a l budget iu d lu atin g : t h a t P sttobourd Lino #1 a t P la n t #1 whs pprcK&ahtaly 98? eassplatc and would bo f u l l y cemplet&d by ifiurcii 1. 1'hn H arraboerd l i n e d`2 e t P le a t #1 l a about 85? aompletft no o f Ja n u ary 1 and sow machlnats had n o t been o rd ered a t th a t d a ta but th a t t o t a l com pletion was esepeoted by Juna 1* She b'errohoard h ie s #3 a t p la n t f.3 i n Chicago hen been delay ed due t o c o n s tru c tio n proton and w eather cou&ifciona and i s new nohcdulyfi f o r cobs* p la tio in about July. Canadian yevro dot lope ltd . Step X regarding the aid s board p r o d u c tiv ity 1 appruxisoataly 30? com plete, ersd S tep I I canueraing th e P erroboard fciners i s about 63% and sh o u ld ba com pleted by F ebruary. S tep 1XX f o r P e tr aboard H iage i s due fo r cowpiefcion towefcirse i Juiie. Ih e sand b ulk h an d lin g equips. fo r l i n e s 1 end k 1 about 80? com plete w ith f i n a l com pletion by February f d9, s.A.H adioarned the wuutieg*. 1 /2 2 /8 9 $m r <* _ ^ x ^ Q o o o4x J. iSo m- ff.y X - a s c a n c e r : C ' H\ !> Alfred Hrjie ,< <{ i.Sti>A TK i,% S t- tr.y- . . , ! >rt \hxvt A iitttk jr iti!'.(y <MKliWp s.'ilsiStiinXa-;; Xx f(NS >i i*vMifrrr !Sliir'. . ' H o ............k..... .. t-i; ;<. i SiMik. ibi- filosi, iissiii? />)>! Yc$ /i.l>i<trsi.<-iim < ( o l o n e v s thrtiva.. 't(uV > t'-l : '< >f < * 1 i r . f u r i s i li: .! f . i , V J .V ,v S l i r i f f S > * ' . > * M i s % r i i i < r f ( .t f i > r l > i < < > n . S ( .p . .f c * . g h . l i f t . | .'n i SM H h :. .1 ..'si 1 S i- f u m i >*" 1 .:hr i .'K .r C t. s* *Jii A u ? ( : T i d i i ' i t T ( i,),i,(,f mr er rn.tteoiliii 1 ,, -i '/.* ti- is- Vr - s ir . v ;u i t n i .* l i ! HI #>- : M t i p i U r r . ' y Jsiij K.lftlul'ti i'.is i prr<X,(lh,i!jl. 'irti s>.f>-mriiirsr,i nsr; JtDfsMHSi r si); (h( ib**Ki w a rli-rv l'iiiiibli' i.sr ' - nwssij, ^ 'lo r t i i i t w i( . - s ' . <it ` -iv le r - ih - f a i r' <?ss;;;p.>>>.s:`;*f;!-; !MV :'KrV^9HH|j ririi- s ii f ii r V o r fiiiitiiii ?l>rr<* i> ti "H : i j * * . l i I n n i fs<i 1 1 liii't. :.3 tv.me_r .>( :,<r e -.iu -t-- ih ft'* rrouisfior. bws"' < -m i f i n i ~ m - | ? <tm>ik '* o r \ e 'l (ite j stifiji t y *(" ` '! * . ' b s lo m in s ! '(r titA try . " fiii a'.i;:. in ii* i.-. invirU Si 5jlai > <r!i:r;:iu S<>: .'ini v..rpi <:i u ien .it Thert 'iif<!s;i.i'C;4*5Sfiiii;>ri^^^ ............. '. *<>:: :'.Wiift{y. rsiH;ms>'' i< hryxife.li'v e r ty jtfi ilif i^ i t i m i , * ;. ()>*f miSMi.-cs io > fr ---.h o -h[o m / t t ' M V W ti; in o ha . hrmn- issivi.t iinf A 'iS H t i- 'r :il a ll p i l i ' j ; ,, i I ih * * M W x 'li-jyiM p prc-etil '*, >.< i r t i , ; K r if ji r 1! ' ,ltT 0y ; ih * I W s r s h CvlIfK t\ . }>b. . - ss I M n m . S m o t t i f . f a . il V i,> ( > r f t r r . - . j . g ; * - |>vTh. >i0v -J. :- (i.iltin.: ..m. ..l'.v.i.O..i.f.t... --* - - ,.r.!........... ; 5iLft ;:>4i h O.f.tV.i..h...fc.vV^F t,rw>\yPi) . *w>fi^h`*t/yi--iB- Hriitft'iinij A> aVfr'tfe.'? 4 0 y<?j&rtf ;elPs beivttfi t w w i | Sih(s* enti Uic -il j:W* sro*lh i.*pujc (or yc.ly {i1'*** j>rAi}iVihvcOiYy%fjic'.aa tws xm iv' l "|"?si<til #,. va, iirM /t'V V K M a OMWQ0042 CONTINS S8EST0S HBRS AV08 CREAIR8 CUS breathn m m w m t hw mm SSH0USgmv harm is actual size used. Color was almost always red. We have o records of dates of use * OMW0043