Document ypVbzaDrEKN3jJLdyKqd9zzrX

Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 2/48 RightFAX 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERVILLE ' STATE OF LOUISIANA ROBERT HAROLD DURBIN NUMBER49,399 VERSUS OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL DIVISION: "A" DEFENDANT. EXXON CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PREMISES DEFENDANTS Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"),- who submits these objections and answers to the Interrogatories propounded by plaintiffin the above-entitled matter as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ' These answers to plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production ofDocuments have been compiled as the result of an investigation into the historical5 practices and the procedures -- i followed by Exxon over many decades. Through the passage of time, many persons with knowledge ofthese matters are unknown, cannot be located, or have passed away. Similarly, the passage oftime has probably resulted in the inability to locate documents which may have existed in earlier years. Accordingly, the information available to Exxon regarding these historical matters is incomplete and may remain incomplete despite continuing efforts to locate knowledgeable persons and relevant documents. To the extent additional information is ascertained, these answers will be supplemented. When Exxon's response refers to documents it will make available, Exxon will provide responsive documents to plaintiffs counsel for inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and location. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Exxon objects to these requests to the extent that these requests seek information protected by the Attorney-Client, Work Product, Investigative and Party Communication Privileges, or Joint or Common Defense Privileges; is proprietary or confidential in nature, or is subject to any other applicable exemption, privilege or immunity, and such information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. zsmtj RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM V1 , A- IPS-*' * _ Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 3/48 RightFAX 2. Exxon objects to these requests because they are overly broad to the extent that they seek information that is not limited in scope to the work area within the Baton Rouge Refinery and -period ofemployment ofthe plaintiffat the Baton Rouge Refinery or seek information that is in the public domain and is as accessible to plaintiffas to this defendant. 3. Exxon objects to these requests to the extent that they call for the revelation of information and documents prepared in anticipation of litigation or subsequent thereto as part ofand to advance the defense ofthat litigation. 4. Exxon objects to all requests to the extent they inquire into the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of Exxon's legal representatives. 5. Exxon objects to all requests to the extent they seek information which is not in Exxon's possession, custody or control. 6. Exxon objects to the definition of the words Defendant, You, Your and Your company, because that definition refers to entities other than the defendant responding to these discovery requests. The definition includes, for example, foreign subsidiaries, present and former officers, employees, directors, agents and all persons acting on Exxon's behalf. Iftaken literally, this definition would require Exxon to respond on behalfof perhaps thousands ofpersons and/or entities, none ofwhom are defendants. Therefore, these responses, unless otherwise noted, will be solely on behalf ofExxon, the defendant in this proceeding PARTICULAR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 State the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by defendant and a year-by year list of all other positions, titles or jobs held when working for defendant for each person who has supplied any information used in answering these Interrogatories. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory No. 1 because it potentially seeks privileged information. Without waiving these objections, undersigned counsel prepared the answers to these Interrogatories, after discussions with his client. . 289238.1 2 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 4/48 RightFAX INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Please identify the name ofthe answering defendant, including all prior names or predecessor entities, describe the chain of title of the facility where the plaintiffalleges he worked, and provide a corporate history ofthe answering defendant. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Without waiving these objections: \ `Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; `Standard Oil Company; `Humble Oil and Refining Company ("Humble"); `Standard Oil Company changed its name to Exxon Corporation in 1972; `Humble, Esso Chemical Company, Inc. and Enjay Chemical Company merged into Exxon Corporation in 1973. * The Baton Rouge Refinery has always been owned and operated by Exxon or one ofmore of its corporate predecessors. 5 `? INTERROGATORY NO. 3 ' Have you owned, operated, controlled, possessed of otherwise managed or occupied defendants premises at all times that plaintiffworked or was present at defendants premises? If not, please state the dates wherein defendant owned, operated, controlled, possessed and managed defendants premises, the entity from whom defendant acquired defendants premises, the entity to whom defendant sold defendant's premises and the person with the most knowledge of each transaction. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Exxon and/or its corporate predecessors have owned and operated the Baton Rouge refinery during all times pertinent to this case. However, Exxon states that, at numerous times during its ownership and operation ofthis facility, portions ofits premises have been placed in the temporary custody of various contractors for maintenance and other work. During those times and at those locations, the facility may have been "controlled, possessed or otherwise managed or occupied" by someone other than Exxon. Exxon cannot reconstruct each instance in whichthis may have occurred. 289Z3S_1 3 RECEIVED TIMEKOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 5/48 RightFAX INTERROGATORY NO. 4 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 this case, as well as a summary of the knowledge possessed by each individual. (Further, if such person is or has been an employee of defendant, please state the years of employment and the person's employment positions.) ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as over broad, repetitive, unduly burdensome, harassing and vague. The Interrogatory is repetitive, unduly burdensome and harassing since it seeks information that plaintiff already has and has provided to defense counsel in the form of plaintiffs discovery responses in this case, as well as the depositions of professor James W. Hammond and the exhibits attached to those depositions provided to plaintiff in Emery v. Owens Coming, et aL Plaintiffs discovery demands seek to cause unnecessary and added costs^fo this litigation by asking the defendant to produce the same information the plaintiffalready has. The Interrogatory is even more burdensome since plaintiffhas not identified with sufficient specificity when and where Mr. Durbin worked at an Exxon facility. Mr. Durbin testified in his deposition that he worked at an Exxon facility (or its predecessor) from 1954 - 1982 intermittently (or a total of20 years). However, he did not provide specifics as to where and when he worked at a particular Exxon facility. Subject to these objections, and reserving all rights thereunder, Exxon responds that some, but not all, ofthose persons whose names were listed in Exxon Corporation's Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories, filed by Exxon in the Emery case may have knowledge about the facts ofthis case, to the extent those facts are discernible by Exxon at this time. Exxon incorporates those responses herein by reference. . INTERROGATORY NO. 5 By 1985, was the answering defendant aware ofinformation or facts concerning any reported association between exposure to asbestos or asbestos products and the following: a. Asbestosis? b. Pleural Disease? 2*923S_1 4 RECEIVED TIMENOV. [8. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 6/48 RightFAX c. Lung Cancer? d. Mesothelioma? e. Gastrointestinal cancer? f. Other cancers? g. Other health effects? If not by 1985, when, ifever, did you become aware of information or foots concerning any reported association between exposure to asbestos or asbestos products and the health effects listed above? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 5 as over broad, unduly burdensome, vague and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad since it seeks information regarding Exxon's knowledge presumably both before and after plaintiff worked at its premises. Tor the same reason, it seeks irrelevant information since plaintiff claims exposure several decades before the time period * >' requested. What Exxon knew after Durbin was on Exxon's premises is wholly immaterial. The request is unduly burdensome because, even assuming Exxon's knowledge during plaintiffs presence on its facilities was relevant, plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he was working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving this objection, Exxon states that, by 1985, it was aware ofan association between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is the only disease which plaintiff claims to have. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 If your answer to Interrogatory No. 4 [sic] as to any ofthe sub-parts is affirmative, please provide a reasonable description ofthe following: . a. The time and manner this defendant teamed of such an association; b. Any documents you received prior to plaintiffs last presence at your facility which referred to, reflected or discussed facts concerning the association between exposure to asbestos and the disease set forth in Interrogatory No. 4 [sic], and the identity of the persons) so communicating, the manner in which you received these documents, 2SZ3*_l 5 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM % -> Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 7/48 RightFAX including by medical or scientific studies or attendance at conferences, lectures, conventions, symposia or meetings and the current custodian of such records. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 See previous objections and answer. Further responding, Exxon refers plaintiffs to the deposition of James W. Hammond, vols. I-IV ("Hammond's deposition"), specifically, see vol. n, Russell Allen v. American Petrqfina, Inc., et al., dated July 6, 1990 and documents produced in response to Request for Production of Documents including Exxon's Procedures Concerning Safeguarding Workers From Asbestos Health Hazards before OSHA ("Corporate Report"). For further information responsive to this Interrogatory, see the trial testimony of Professor James Hammond in the Lorraine Peggy Williams v. Exxon, gt al matter, previously produced to counsel for plaintiffs. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 Please identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility owned or operated by you in which asbestos products were assembled, stored, used, prepared for use, installed or ,* fabricated, specifying the dates each such plant is or was in operation and the time span during which f-i each named item was stored, used, prepared for use, installed or fabricated. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 7 in its entirety as over broad, and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks information on all plants without regard to location, whether plaintiff worked there, or the dates in which asbestos products were allegedly assembled, stored, etc. The Interrogatorythus would seek information spanning over eighty years, just with regard to the Baton Rouge plant. Even were the Interrogatory limited to plants where plaintiffworked, the Interrogatory would be unduly burdensome because plaintifffails to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. It is further burdensome because there are miles ofpiping in Exxon's facilities, some ofwhich are insulated, and yet plaintiffhas been unable to narrow the locations where 2923S_1 6 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM _ r1 ,, -n-- ' Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 8/48 RightFAX he has worked. Exxon also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Exxon assembled, prepared for use or fabricated asbestos products. Without waiving these objections, see the invoices, purchase orders, etc. produced to plaintiff in the Emery case from which plaintiffs can ascertain the identity ofsome ofthe products installed at the Baton Rouge Refinery. The remainder of the information sought in this Interrogatoiy is not known to Exxon. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Please state whether you educated plaintiff or other workers concerning any potential health hazards known by you and/or any safety precautions necessary to guard against any adverse health effects arising from the use of handling of or working around asbestos-containing insulation products at your facility before 1985. If so, please provide a reasonable description of a. When and in what manner plaintiff or other workers was so informed; b. Documents communicating, reflecting or otherwise discussing Such conveyed. information including the substance and who received them and when; a ,4 c. Programs, seminars or classes which were sponsored^ attended or initiated by your *& company to convey such information; d. Any safety equipment, including respiratory masks or devices which were issued or otherwise provided to plaintiff or other workers at your facility, and the programs utilized to instruct them with respect to proper usage of any such equipment, including the nature and substance ofsuch programs and who participated and when; e. Any persons with responsibility for developing implementing and overseeing the application ofsuch programs for any period oftime; f. Medical monitoring or industrial hygiene programs designed to follow up on the health and safety of plaintiffor other workers at your facility. Ifnot by 1985, when, ifever, did you begin so.educating plaintiffor other workers. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 8 in its entirety as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence and information which is equally accessible to plaintiff. 3S923*_1 7 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 9/48 RightFAX The Interrogatory is over broad because it seeks information on education which was provided both before and after plaintiff was allegedly working at Exxon's premises. It also seeks irrelevant information to the extent it requests information on education of "other workers." What other workers were taught is immaterial to Durbin's claims against Exxon. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming Exxon's educational policies during plaintiffs presence on its facilities were relevant, plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. Finally, the Interrogatory is objected to because it implies that Exxon had a duty to educate employees ofcontractors regarding safety or other issues. Without waiving these objections, Exxon refers plaintiffto Hammond's deposition, pp. 357 358, 422-430, 433,469-471, 472, 473-77, vol. T, at 105-109. According to Mr. Hammond, Exxon employees were provided safety manuals which discussed dust control. These manuals were also provided to contractor supervisors. Additionally, the Dust Producing Operations in the Production ofPetroleum Products and Associated Activities ("Bonsib Report"), authored by Roy Bonsib in 1937, discussed procedures to control or reduce the hazard of dust. TheBonsib Report has a section on the use ofrespiratory protective equipment. See also documents produced in response to Request for Production, which in turn includes the Corporate Report. See also the trial and deposition testimony ofNeil Weaver and Ralph Howe in the Emery care where there issues were discussed. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 Have you ever conducted, directed, sponsored, or participated in any epidemiological or toxicological studies concerning any potential association between asbestos exposure and the diseases listed in Interrogatory No. 4 [sic]? If so, please provide a reasonable description ofi a. When each study was conducted? b. The purpose ofeach study? c. The identify ofthe person or organizations conducting and when and how the results ofthe study were disseminated; d. Whether or not any ofyour employees were included in any ofthe studies; e. Whether any of the studies are ongoing; and f. The title or publication name ofeach such study. 289Z3S.1 8 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 13. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 10/48 RightFAX ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 9 in its entirety as over broad, and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome because it asks defendant to provide data on eveiy epidemiological or toxicological study without specifying the time period. Without waiving these objections, see Hammond's depositions, and the exhibits to Weaver's deposition produced in the Emery matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Please provide a reasonable description ofany audit or inspection ofyour facility and/or your other facilities by a governmental agency which was concerned with or resulted in warnings, citations,^ reprimands or other findings with regard to the use of asbestos resulting in potential exposure to persons. In your answer, please identify the person or entity conducing such audits or inspections. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 in its entirety as over broad, vague, burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome because it requests a listing ofeach occasion when any governmental agency inspected any ofdefendant's facilities. The request seeks irrelevant information for similar reasons and because the failure to conduct such inspections; ifthat occurred, could not have affected plaintiffor his health. The request is also unduly burdensome because; even assuming the inspections during plaintiffs presence on its facilities were relevant, plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he was working at an Exxon facility. ~ Additionally, "findings with regard to the use ofasbestos resulting in potential exposure to persons" is impermissibly vague. Without waiving these objections, Exxon has found no audits responsive to this Interrogatory. 28923S.1 9 RECEIVED TiMEKOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 11/48 RightFAX INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Please provide a reasonable description of any medical examination program(s), medical monitoring program(s), or other medical surveillance offered or sponsored by your facility or its insurance carries with regard to plaintiffor other workers, exposed or potentially exposed to asbestos at your facility. With respect to each such program, please provide a reasonable description of a. The manner ofcommunicating with employees about such programs; b. Whether or not the programs were mandatory or optional; c. Whether or not the program or examinations were for all workers, including employees of contractors on defendant's premises, or just for defendant's payroll workers; d. What each program or examination consisted of e. What the criteria were for worker participation; and f. For each study, what percentage ofworkers were found to have an asbestos-related. . disease or malignancies; g. What records of such program, examination or surveillance exist at this time, * including but not limited to reports, x-rays, medical notes and/or descriptions ofany kind or correspondence. . ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 11 in its entirety as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome because it asks for information on any medical examination, monitoring or surveillance program offered by Exxon with regard to plaintiffor other workers exposed or potentially exposed,to asbestos at Exxon's facility. The request is not limited in time even though plaintiffwas present at Exxon facilities for limited periods oftime. To the extent Interrogatory No. 11 relates to "other workers," it seeks irrelevant information. Even assuming the time period and locations in this Interrogatory were limited by the petition and/or discovery and that the information was relevant, the request is unduly burdensome since 2S923S.1 10 RECEIVED TIMENOv. 18. 2;33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 12/48 RightFAX plaintiff fails to identify with sufficient specificity when and where they were working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, F.xxon states that there was no medical monitoring program for employees of independent contractors. Exxon expected such services to be provided by the employers of those workers, just as Exxon provided such services for its employees. Howevi Exxon did make available to contractor employees its medical facilities for injuries occurring i Exxon's premises. For a description ofExxon's medical monitoring policies and procedures for its employees, see Hammond's deposition, deposition ofNeil Weaver, John Lione's trial testimony, and the Corporate Report and other documents produced in response to the Request for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 12 Please identify if your company was a member of or subscribed to scientific or medical periodicals published by, the following trade organizations, associations, panels, or other groups and entities relating to occupational disease and/or industrial hygiene related to asbestos before 1985; a. The American Petroleum Institute ("API"); M b. The Chemical Manufacturers Association ("CMA") (or its predecessor, the MCA); c. Chlorine Institute; d. Industrial Hygiene Foundation; e. National Insulation Manufacturers Association; f. The Asbestos Textile Institute; g. The Asbestos Information Association; h. The National Safety Council ("NSC"); i. ACGIH; j. The American Occupational Medical Association; k. The American Public Health Associatfon; l. The American Chemical Society [sic]; m. The American Chemical Society; n. NIOSH o. Other organizations addressing other occupational diseases or industrial hygiene concerns relating to asbestos. 28923S.1 11 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 13/48 RightFAX In your answer, please state whether your company participated in any meeting of these trade groups relating to asbestos or asbestos-related diseases and please identify all documents received as a result ofsuch memberships or subscriptions relating to relating to asbestos-related diseases or which refer to any discussions held at such meetings relating to asbestos or asbestos-related diseases, and the names ofthe peison(s) who you have reason to believe would have attended these meetings on behalf ofyour company. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatoiy No. 12 as over broad, unduly burdensome, vague and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks the described information concerning defendant prior to 1985 and presumably from Exxon's beginnings. For these reasons and because plaintiffwas not working at Exxon during the entire time span mentioned in the request, it seeks irrelevant information. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming the request was limited to the '> time periods or locations specified in the petition and/or discovery and the information was relevant, plaintifffoils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. The Interrogatory is also impermissibly vague because it does not define the terminology "subscribed to," or "relating to occupational disease and/or industrial hygiene related to asbestos." Without waiving these objections, Exxon belongs to API, CMA and NSC. Exxon is trying to determine if there are any other company memberships responsive to this request. See also Hammond's deposition. Weaver's deposition and documents produced in response to the Request for Production ofDocuments. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 State in detail what tests have been conducted with regard to the quantify, qualify, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while usin& working with or around, or installing asbestos-containing products in any ofyour facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted and the results ofany such test. 2S923S.I 12 RECEIVED TIUEII07. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 14/48 RightFAX ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 13 Exxon incorporates its general objections. In addition Exxon objects because this Interrogatory seeks information which pertains to time periods during which plaintiff was not on Exxon's premises and therefore the Interrogatory does not seek admissible evidence nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to those objections, Exxon does not have detailed knowledge ofall ofthe tests which have been conducted at its Baton Rouge Refinery over the years. See, however, the Bonsib report and the Industrial Hygiene Survey of the Baton Rouge Refinery (Feb.-Apr. 1949). INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Please provide a reasonable description ofany steps you took or programs adopted between 1972 and 1985 to determine the location ofarty asbestos-containing materials located at your facility, stating the dates such steps were taken or programs adopted, any procedures or rules utilized to locate, analyze and report the presence ofasbestos-containing materials and the names ofthe persons who took or analyzed the samples and/or generated reports from such analysis. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 " The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 14 as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad because it requests information pertaining to years during which plaintiff was not working at an Exxon facility. While it refers to your facility and your facility is defined as the facility where the plaintiffworked, it is still over broad because plaintiffdoes not indicate exactly where he worked and when. For similar reasons, the request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. The request is also burdensome because, even assuming the location ofasbestos-containing materials during the times plaintiffwas on specific premises were requested and considered relevant, plaintiff Ms to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he was working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, defendant Exxon followed all state and federal regulations pertaining to asbestos. See also documents produced in the Emery matter. 2*923_1 13 RECEIVED TIHEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 15/48 RightFAX INTERROGATORY NO, 1$ Please state the address of defendant's principal place of business and the parish wherein defendant's primary place ofbusiness is located. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. IS Exxon Refinery 4060 Scenic Highway Baton Rouge, LA INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Please identify current/prior employee or employees who would be designated by you to testify at a corporate deposition regarding the following areas relating to the time period the plaintiff worked at your facility. The persons) so designated should be able to address corporate and/or facility awareness up to 1985 regarding the following area. In your answer, please state the positions or titles held in your company: a. Potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to asbestos; . b. Safety, medical and environmental staffing at your facility; c. Engineering controls utilized at your facility relative.to the reduction, mitigation or elimination ofexposure to asbestos; >* > d. Safety and industrial hygiene policies, practices and procedures at your facility relative to the reduction, mitigation or elimination ofexposure to asbestos; e. Industrial hygiene monitoring conducted at your facility for asbestos; f. Medical monitoring and testing programs for the employees at your facility exposed to asbestos materials ofany type; g. The policies, procedures, and practices with regard to informing employees working at your facility of abnormal x-ray findings such as increased interstitial markings, pleural plaques, etc., and his possible relationship to the employee's prior asbestos exposure; . h. The personal protective and respiratory protection equipment utilized at your facility for the protection against asbestos materials; i. Any hazard communication "safety program" or other similar program for which the purpose was to inform employees working at your facility ofthe potentially hazardous qualities ofany asbestos-containing material present at your facility, 28923S.1 14 RECEIVED TiMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 16/48 RightFAX j. Material safety data sheets which refer to asbestos; k. Toxicological studies concerning asbestos which this defendant either conducted, coordinated or sponsored which relate or refer to asbestos, published or unpublished; l. Epidemiological studies (formal or informal, internal or third party, proposed, published or unpublished, completed or still in progress) which included workers at your other facilities and all documents which refer, reflect or relate to such studies (and regarding whether such studies were for the specific purpose of investigating asbestos-related disease); m. The consideration, adoption, and/or establishment ofa respiratory protection program at your facility; n. The purchase or acquisition ofasbestos-containing insulation products for use at your facility; and o. Compliance with federal and state regulations, specifically, regulations pertaining to workplace safety practices and exposure to asbestos. [Ifyour response to ary ofthe ,k above sub-parts includes any claim that you employpo person or persons that meet ` *- i the descriptions in the sub-parts, please identify the employee or employee(s) or other source(s) ofinformation upon which you rely to make such a statement.] ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Defendant will provide this information to plaintiff as and when corporate depositions are noticed. Further responding, Exxon refers plaintiffs to the corporate depositions ofExxon taken by plaintiffs' counsel in the Emery matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Please identify the names ofall mamiacturers, distributors and/or contractors whom you have reason to believe sold or otherwise provided asbestos-containing thermal insulations products or other asbestos-containing products for use at your fecilityup to 198S. In your answer, please specify to the extent you ate able, the trade or brand name for the product, and a reasonable description of all documents reflecting the acquisition of such products. 2*923*_J 15 RECEIVED TIHENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 17/48 RightFAX ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory is overboard because it requests information pertaining to years during which plaintiffwas not working at an Exxon facility. While it refers to your facility and your facility is defined as the facility where the plaintiff worked, it is still over broad and burdensome because plaintiff does not indicate exactly where he worked and when. For similar reasons, the request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. Without waiving these objections, Exxon believes that asbestos-containing products were installed on its premises by Anco Insulations, Inc. and McCarty Corporation or their corporate predecessors. In addition, numerous witnesses, most of whom were not Exxon employees, have identified asbestos-containing products which they alleged seeing and/or working with at Exxon's facilities. Plaintiffs' counsel is as familiar w ith these persons and their * testimony as are Exxon's counsel and representatives. Therefore Exxon refers counsel to| this testimony. , For further information regarding the subject matter ofthis Interrogatory, see invoices, purchase orders and other documents produced in the Emery litigation. INTERROGATORY NQ,. 18 Please state the following with respect to each expert witness that you may call during trial ofthese cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you will call, including the name, address and job classification of each such expert witness; the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; the substance ofthe facts and opinions to which the expected to testify and a summary ofthe grounds for each opinion and whether any such expert has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify each such document or report. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 . The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Subject to those objections, Exxon will provide this information in its Witness List. INTERROGATORY NO. 1? List all feet witnesses you intend to call at trial, and state the subject matter ofhis testimony and the substance ofthe facts to which they are expected to testify. 289238_1 16 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 18/48 RightFAX ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 19 See objections and responses to Interrogatory 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Identify by style, cause number, and date, every lawsuit filed against defendant wherein the claimant alleged injury from exposure to asbestos. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2Q The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 20 in its entirety, as over broad and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. ' INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Please identify all insurance companies, corporations or syndicates which may provide insurance coverage (either primary or excess) with regard to your facility for plaintiffs asbestos*, related personal injury claim asserted in the present case. In your answer, please list the names of each such company, the type of coverage for each policy and the applicable dates ofcoverage. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 in its entirety as over broad, burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks insurance information for years in which plaintiffwas not working at an Exxon facility and presumably from Exxon's beginnings to present day. For these same reasons, the request seeks totally irrelevant information. The Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the time periods or locations specified in the petition and/or discovery and the information about insurance coverage were relevant, plaintifffoils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he was working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, Exxon states that it is self-insured for purposes ofthis litigation. V- 2S92M.1 17 RECEIVED TIME!!1:" 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 19/48 RightFAX INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Please state whether defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever operated a safety department or medical department at defendant's facility, and ifso, please state the years ofoperation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 22 in its entirety as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It is over broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information on a safety department or medical department in place at times and locations where plaintiffwas not working at Exxon. For similar reasons, it seeks totally irrelevant information. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in the petition and/or through discovery and the information were relevant, plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where hi worked at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, upon information and belief Exxon or its predecessors had both a safety and medical program in place at the Baton Rouge facility from its inception. Plaintiff has been provided with extensive information on that program through the depositions of its former medical directors and others. For further information, Exxon refers plaintiffs to the deposition of Gene Crawford who is the only living safety department head prior to 1970. INTERROGATORY NO, 23 Please identify all persons employed in the following capacities at your facility during the time frame the plaintiffworked there, his current location ifno longer employed by your company, and the dates ofhis employment: a. Plant/Manager/Superintendent; b. Medical Director/Supervisor; c. Toxicologist; d. Industrial Hygienist; e. Safety Manager/Supervisor; f. Environmental Manager; and g. Plant Physician. 2S923S_1 18 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 20/48 RightFAX ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23 . The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome since plaintiffdoes not specify in detail where and when he worked at an Exxon facility. Without waving these objections, see Hammond's deposition, the Corporate Report, and the depositions of Neil Weaver, John Lione and Ralph Howe in the Emery case, as well as other documents produced in response to Request for Production ofDocuments. INTERROGATORY NO, 24 Please state when your company stopped utilizing asbestos-containing products in your facility or any portion thereto. In your answer, please include a reasonable description ofthe reason why your company was prompted to remove asbestos-containing materials and/or cease to utilize them, who made that decision, and how it was carried out. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 24 in its entirety as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence since plaintiffhas foiled to identify exactly when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: Sometime prior to 1972, Exxon decided to phase out the use ofasbestos-containing materials by using non-asbestos materials where technically feasible. In 1972, in conformance with OSHA guidelines and company policy, Exxon ceased installing asbestos-containing materials in its Baton Rouge Refinery. The decision was prompted by ongoing research and devetoping knowledge ofthe potential health risks associated with certain asbestos exposures. The decision was made by Exxon's industrial hygienists in consultation with management. The decision was implemented as follows: During maintenance procedures, asbestos free insulation was used as a replacement for worn insulation. See documents previously produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter. . INTERROGATORY NO. 25 Please state when your company was first advised ofthe Threshold Limit Values or Maximum Allowable Concentration ofAsbestos Dust by the American Conference ofIndustrial Hygienists; and state the name ofthe employee official ofthe company receiving such advice, as well as a reasonable 28923S.1 19 RECEIVED TiMSNOV. 13. 2:33PM -> Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 21/48 RightFAX description and identification of all documents which reflect communication of such advice of the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if felly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 25 in its entirety as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated Id lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence since plaintiffhas foiled to identify exactly when and where he worked at an Exxon focility. Defendant further objects because to its knowledge, there is no such group as the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists. Without waiving these objections, in 1947, the Journal ofThe American Hygiene Association published maximum allowable concentration for asbestos dust, 5 million particles per cubic foot, a recommendation by the American Conference ofGovernment Industrial Hygienists. Defendant knew about this threshold limit shortly after it was published as a result of ongoing review of scientific- literature by its medical and health professionals. See also Hammond's deposition, p. 327 and exhibits thereto. . INTERROGATORY NO. 26 . -.o % Please describe all recommended internal company asbestos exposure levels that were suggested by any toxicologist; physician, industrial hygienist, or safety professional, employed by your company up to 1985. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffelly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 26 in its entirely as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Exxon followed pertinent standards for asbestos exposure published, first, by ACGIH and later by others including.OSHA. To Exxon's knowledge, none ofits safety and health professionals recommended a standard different from those promulgated by these entities. INTERROGATORY NO. 27 Please provide a reasonable description of industrial hygiene controls and/or work practices or procedures that were utilized up to 1985 to control, mitigate or reduce asbestos emissions 28923S_l 20 RECEIVED TIUEHCV. 18. 2-:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 22/48 RightFAX associated with activities involving stripping, applying, mixing, fabricating or cutting asbestos- containing insulation products and the date when your company first began using such controls. If none, please provide a reasonable description of such controls and/or work practices or procedures that existed in your facilities and when they were implemented. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 27 as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for reasons explained in the preceding response. Without more specific information regarding when and where plaintiff worked, it is impossible to determine which controls and/or work practices or procedures were in effect during his presence. Without waiving its objections, upon information and belief; the reports from Roy Bonsib, OSHA regulations and "American Conference ofGovernmental Industrial Hygienists M.AC. Values" were utilized at various times. Internal Procedures developed, implemented, overseen and/or revised by James Hammond which he discusses on pages 105-109 ofhisdejrosition in the Allen case were (are) also applicable to the asbestos exposure issue. - Exxon had many industrial hygiene controls, such as attempting to avoid production ofdust, attempting to control the dust by wetting asbestos-containing products prior to removal and supplying the workers with respirators to perform the operation. The respirators provided included the Comfo M.S.A and others and were approved by the Bureau ofMines. See documents previously produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 Does your company have, has it ever had, or have any ofyour predecessors had a research department? IFso, give the year such a department was established, whether or not such a research department has operated continuously since being established, how much was allocated each year for research purposes related to asbestos, and what percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessors spend on research concerning the health effects ofasbestos. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory 28 as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks 289238J 21 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 23/48 RightFAX irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information regarding the research department regardless ofthe goal of the research department or when plaintiffworked at an Exxon facility and presumably from Exxon's beginnings until present day. INTERROGATORY NO. 29 Please identify and provide a reasonable description ofany and all safety manuals, training manuals or other similar documents provided to or made available to plaintiffor other workers at your facility up to 1990. (Include in your answer the dates when each of these manuals were provided and/or made available to describe any language which may have been included regarding the health or safety hazards associated with asbestos exposure). Ifnone, please state whether such safety manuals, training manuals or other similar documents were provided to workers at arty ofyour facilities and, if so, when? , ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29 The general objections are incorporated in this response as jf folly stated herein. Further, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and unduly burdensome because it is not limited to the times when and locations where plaintiff worked at an Exxon facility. Additionally, the request seeks information on manuals regardless ofwhether they discuss asbestos exposure. For these reasons, the Interrogatory also seeks totally irrelevant information. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in the petition and through discovery and the information sought were relevant, plaintiff has foiled to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. Without waiving these objections, Exxon will and/or has produced such documents as are still available to it in lieu offurther response to this Interrogatory. Because ofExxon's policy ofreplacing old manuals with the most current safety information and after diligent search, Exxon has not located any manuals from the time Same during which plaintiff alleges work at Exxon facilities. But see exemplary manuals produced in response to Request for Production ofDocuments. 2S923S.1 22 Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 24/48 RightFAX INTERROGATORY NO. 30 Please state whether or not your facility ever offered any type ofrespiratory masks, appliance or other protective equipment to workers up to 1985 for use while handling or working around or in the presence of other handling asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following: a. Describe the type of protective equipment provided (e.g., disposable paper masks, disposable cloth masks, cartridge respirators, airline-supplied; respirators, etc.), as well as the name ofthe manufacturer, the model number, and the dates ofusage; b. The reason the protective equipment was offered; c. A list ofwhich crafts were offered which equipment; d. What recommendations or guidelines were provided to workers concerning proper usage of such equipment; e. Whether the use of any ofthe equipment was mandatory or optional; f. The identify of anyone having responsibility for ordering such equipment, training workers on its proper usage and overseeing that such equipment was used properly; and . * g. Identify and describe all documents relating to the decision to provide such equipment. Ifsuch respiratory masks, appliances or other protection equipment were not provided at your facility during this time period, please state whether such respiratory masks, appliances or other protection equipment were provided at any ofyour other facilities and, of so, where ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30 See objections and answer to Interrogatory No. 27. INTERRQGATQRYJI.Ql.31 Please provide a reasonable description of any industrial hygiene controls (e.g., exhaust ventilation, wetting down procedures, closed conveyor systems), recommended safe working practices (e.g, respiratory protections, roping off areas in which asbestos is being applied or removed, etc.) or exposure monitoring programs with respect to asbestos exposure at your facility up to 1985. Ifthere were no industrial hygiene controls at your facility during this time period, please state whether there were any such hygiene controls, recommended working practices, or exposure monitoring programs at ary ofyour other facilities and, ifso, when they were implemented. Ifthere 289238.1 23 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 25/48 RightFAX were industrial hygiene controls, recommended working practices, or exposure monitoring programs at your facility during this time period, please state: ' a. The substance ofthe industrial hygiene controls, safe working practices or exposure monitoring; b. The date when such a control, practice or monitoring was put in place and the years each remained in effect; c. The means by which the employees were informed of the need for such a control, practice or monitoring; d. The identify ofthe persons involved in the drafting, implementation and operation of each such control, practice or monitoring; and e. Describe all documents referring to such controls, practices or monitoring. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31 See objections and Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 30. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 .5 Please provide the following information as to each written or oral caution, warning, hazard V statement, explanation, or written instructions with regard to proper procedures to be followed when working around asbestos which your facility gave to workers up to 1985; a. The precise wording ofeach caution, warning, etc.; b. The date when such caution or warning was first provided; c. The manner such warning or instruction was disseminated; d. Which workers received the warnings; e. The persons involved in drafting and conveying the warnings; and f. Identification ofall documents reflecting or referring to such warnings. If no such cautions, warnings, statements, explanations or instructions were given at your facility during this time period, please state whether any such cautions; warnings, statements, explanations, or instructions were given at any ofyour other facilities and, if so, when they were implemented. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 32 as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks 289238_1 24 RECEIVED 11MEH0V. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 26/48 RightFAX irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the request seeks not only written warnings, but any oral statement, explanation etc. Considering Exxon's size responding to that request would be impossible. The request is also unduly burdensome because, even assuming it were limited to the times and locations identified in plaintiffs pleadings and through discovery, plaintiffMs to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. Without waiving these objections, see documents previously produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 a. Did Defendant enter into any contracts with the U.S. Government or atly of its agencies between 1960 and 1972, wherein the amount of said contract exceeded $10,000? b. Ifthe answer to (a) is "yes," did any ofthe materials, supplies, articles or equipment manufactured or furnished under said contracts originate from Defendant's facility? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33 4 \ The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, the Interrogatory is overbroad because it requests information pertaining to years during which plaintiff was not working at an Exxon facility. Without waiving this objection, defendant has been unable to locate any contracts responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO, 33 Please provide a reasonable description ofany steps taken to comply with 50:204.275 ofthe Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act pertaining to Threshold Limit Values for asbestos at your facility for any year between 1960 and 1972. ANSWERXQ-INTERROGATORY NO, 33 See response to the first Interrogatory 33. . INTERROGATORY NO. 34 Do you contend that Defendant, Defendant?s representatives, insurance carriers and/or agents performed measurements and/or studies prior to 1970 to determine the quantity ofasbestos fibers in the air at Defendant's facilities? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no," identify each and every feet which supports this contention and identify all documents which specifically support this contention. 289238,1 25 RECEIVED NMEHOV. 18. 2':33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 27/48 RightFAX ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 34 as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The Interrogatory is over broad because it seeks information on measurements and/or studies for time periods when plaintiffdid not work at Exxon For similar reasons, the request is unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information. Even assuming the time period were limited by the petition and/or discovery and that the information were relevant, the request is unduly burdensome since plaintiff fails to identify with sufficient specificity when he worked at an Exxon facility. It is also burdensome because even though _ "defendant's facilities and premises" are defined as Exxon's Baton Rouge plants, and plaintiff alleges working at the Exxon Chemical and Refinery locations, he does not specify when he worked at each. Without waiving these objections, Exxon states that it is making no such contention for purposes ofthis litigation at this time. However, Exxon does have information regarding the subject matter ofthis Interrogatory: Following the Bonsib report in 1937^Exxon started using the midget impinger which was mentioned in that report, to evaluate asbestos dust and particles at Bayway (and presumably other facilities). The impinger was a hand-operated small aluminum pump that did not have any static electricity sparks to it; it operated like an organ grinder and at one-tenth of a cubic foot per minute rather than one cubic foot per minute. It was worn around the neck sometimes by the worker. Other times it would be held up to the worker's nose. New areas or operations were monitored. See documents previously produced to counsel for plaintiffi in the Emery matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned its employees and/or other persons on Defendant's premises about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products prior to 1970? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no," identify each and every feet which supports this contention and identify all documents which specifically support this contentioa ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 36 as over broad, unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It > 28923S.1 26 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 28/48 RightFAX is over broad because it seeks information about warnings given to workers other than plaintiff. Further, it is not limited to the time periods in which plaintiffworked at Exxon. Even assuming the time period were limited by the petition and/or discovery and that the information were relevant, the request is unduly burdensome since plaintifffails to identify with sufficient specificity when he worked at an Exxon facility. It is also burdensome because even though "defendant's facilities and premises" are defined as Exxon's Baton Rouge plants, and plaintiffalleges working at the Exxon Chemical and Refinery locations, he does not specify when he worked at each. Finally, Exxon objects to this Interrogatory because it implies that Exxon had a duty to warn employees ofindependent contractors, like plaintiffs. Without waiving these objections, see documents produced in finery. % RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 ' . All documents in the possession of defendant relating or pertaining to all prior lawsuits or other claims involving allegations ofasbestos exposure by anyone irgany ofyour facilities at which the plaintiff now alleges exposure to asbestos, including but not limited to, copies oftranscripts of prior deposition or trial testimony; all product lists; "work history sheets" or other discovery responses from previous or ongoing lawsuits, and ary other documents regarding these lawsuits or claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. f The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, defendant objects to Request No. 1 as over broad and unduly burdensome and because it seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, and reserving its rights thereunder, Exxon has already produced to plaintiffs most of the documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 All documents relating or pertaining to all co-workers or persons that worked at the same facilities as plaintiffregarding his identification ofasbestos-containing products. ->--; 289233_1 27 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 29/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request as written is incapable ofbeing understood or answered. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3 All documents (including but not limited to invoices, receipts or purchasing records) pertaining or relating to the presence or absence ofasbestos-containing products at the sites identified in plaintiffs discovery responses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it seeks information from time periods when plaintiffdid not work at Exxon. Even if limited to the general time periods asserted in plaintiffs petition and through discovery, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when he worked at Exxon. The request is vague since it does not define or identify the particular asbestos-containing product. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see documents produced by Exxon in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4 All documents relating or referring to your knowledge ofthe presence or absence ofasbestos- containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by any ofthe Defendants in this case at anyjob site at which Plaintiffalleges he worked. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 . The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 2MZ3*_1 28 RECEIVED TIME1I07. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 30/48 RightFAX evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information to the extent it seeks information about time periods when plaintiff did not work at Exxon. Even assuming the request were limited to the time periods asserted in plaintiffs petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome because plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when he worked at Exxon. Moreover, the exact facilities are ill-defined. The request is vague to the extent that the term "knowledge" and other terms are not defined. Finally, the request seeks irrelevant information in the absence ofary attempt to link the presence ofasbestos-containing products to the exact locations where plaintiffworked. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Exxon responds as follows: See response to plaintiffs' previous requests for production. REQUEST FDR PRODUCTION NO. 5 All documents stating the names, identity or current residential or business address ofcurrent or former co-workers ofplaintiffat your facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION WO. 5 & <* The general objections are incorporated in this response a^if folly stated herein. Further, there are no documents which satisfy this request. . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 All documents relating or pertaining to any claims made against you or your insurers, whether in the form ofa lawsuit, workers' compensation claim, OSHA complaint or otherwise, involving the presence or use ofasbestos-containing products at any ofyour facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Further, Exxon incorporates its objection and response to Request No. 1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7 A copy ofall pictures, or documents that contain pictures ofany asbestos-containing products in use at any ofyour facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Subject to these objections, see documents previously produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter. 2S9ZSSJ 29 RECETE& TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 31/48 RightFAX REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 All documents relating or pertaining to the identity and present location ofany persons that previously filed a lawsuit or other claim against defendant regarding alleged exposure to any asbestos- containing products at your facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Further, Exxon incorporates its objections and responses to Request No. 1. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 All documents in your possession (including but not limited to pictures, photographs, drawings, sketches or otherwise) relating or pertaining to identifiable characteristics of asbestos- containing products. Documents responsive to this request include items reflecting names, packaging, or other characteristics of such products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffiilly stated herein. Subject to these objections, Exxon refers plaintiffs to the documents previouslyproduced to plaintiffs' counsel in the Emery matter. - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10 All documents, document indexes and computer databases that allow you to access specific knowledge concerning the presence or absence ofany asbestos-containing products at your specific facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Subject to these objections, Exxon refers plaintiffs to the documents previously produced to plaintiffs' counsel in the Emery matter. REQUEST TOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 . All documents in your possession concerning property damage litigation relating or pertaining to the presence ofasbestos-containing products at your facilities. 2S923Sl 30 RECEIVED T1MEN0V. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 32/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request for production does not seek to discover admissible evidence nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that reflect, indicate or in any way relate to communications between you and any manufacturer ofasbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant informstiort&ecause it is not limited in time or to locations where the asbestos-containing products were located. Even assuming the request were limited to the time periods and locations alleged by plaintiffin his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffMs to state with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxoa The request is vague since it does not identify the type ofasbestoscontaining products. Nor does it define "reflect, indicate or in any way relate." Subject to and without waiving these objections, see invoices, purchase orders, and other documents produced in Emery. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings, including but not limited to books; pamphlets, or other written materials ofany kind or character in your possession that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman beings. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. 289238.1 31 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 33/48 RightFAX Exxon Anther objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited to the time periods alleged by plaintiff. Even assuming it were limited to those time periods, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because the time periods are so ill-defined. The request is vague since it does not define the terms "indicate," or "hazardous to the health." It also does not specify the type ofasbestos, or the level, duration, or circumstances of inhalation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds that it has already produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter all documents in its possession which are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 Produce any and all publications in your possession that were disseminated or published by any trade association or organization and that contain information relating to the hazards ofasbestos and all documents which refer to such publications. : RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 4 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information to the extent it seeks publications regardless of when they came into defendant's possession. Even assuming the request were limited to publications acquired during the time period plaintiff-was working at Exxon, answering the request would be unduly burdensome because that time period is so ill-defined. The request is vague since it does not define "hazards" or the type ofasbestos. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds that it has already produced to. counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter all documents in its possession which are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS Produce ary and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that indicate and/or reflect or refer to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants, including but not 2*923*_l 32 RECEIVED TIKE1I0V, 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 34/48 RightFAX limited to written reports produced by such agency. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. IS The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification of the document or documents sought, this request demands the production ofattorney work product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it requests information concerning any ofExxonfs plants, it is not limited to the time period alleged by plaintiff; and it is not confined to health or safety regulations concerning asbestos. Even assuming the request were limited to the locations and times asserted by plaintiff in his petition and, through discovery, and were confirmed to asbestos, answering it would be unduly burdensom&jtince plaintifffoils to state with T' sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. The request is also vague because it does not define and/or identify "indicate and/or reflect or refer," "dust hazards" and the type ofasbestos. Subject to these objections, defendant states that there are no documents in its possession which relate to the Baton Rouge facility which are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 16 Produce ary and all safety meeting minutes or other documents, memoranda and/or writings that refer to the dangers ofasbestos and/or safety measures to be used in the vicinity ofasbestos at defendant's facilities. RESPQIVSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 16 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it concerns facilities 28923a_l 33 RECEIVED TiMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 35/48 RightFAX and time periods not alleged by plaintiff. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff in his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define and/or identify the "asbestos," "safety measures" or "vicinity." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds that it has already produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter all documents in its possession which are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 Produce any and all contracts, memoranda, and/or other writings that in any way reflect arrangements made for the removal of asbestos and/or the installation of asbestos products at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the writings to be produced with specificifysid does not identify a class or a type ofwriting requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited the times and locations involving plaintiff. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff it is unduly burdensome because plaintifffoils to state with sufficient specificity when, and where he worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define "asbestos" or "asbestos products." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See documents produced to plaintiffs counsel in Emery. . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at defendant's facilities. 289238.1 34 RECEIVED TIMEHOY. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 36/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that plaintiffdid not participate in abatement work at Exxon's facility. , REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19 Any and all videotapes and/or photographs and/or other recordation ofthe plaintiff. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if folly stated herein. Subject to these objections. Exxon states that it has no documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20 Any and all material safety data sheets for any asbestos-containing product used at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20 _ The general objections are incorporated in this response'as iffolly stated herein. Subject to these objections, Exxon states that it has located no documents responsive to this request as ofthe date of this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that indicate and/or refer to in any way a decision related to ceasing the use ofasbestos-containing products in any ofyour plants. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or location. Assuming the request were limited to the locations and time periods asserted in plaintiffs petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiff foils to 28923S_1 35 RECEIVED TIMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 37/48 RightFAX identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. The request is also vague because it does not define or identify the type of asbestos-containing products or the terms "indicate or refer to." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds that all documents responsive to this request have been produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22 Produce any and all documents, memoranda and/or other writings that reflect and/or November 17, 1998 demonstrate in the form ofa map and/or chart the layout of defendant's facilities, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and specifically including, but not limited to, the location and/or placement of asbestos-containing products at any time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Assuming the request were limited to the locations and time periods asserted in plaintiffs petition and through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiff fails to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at an Exxon facility. The request is also vague since it does not define or identify the type ofasbestos product or the phrase "reflect or demonstrate." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: Upon information and belief defendant does not possess any documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23 . Produce any brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material ofany kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos that have been published, distributed, or disseminated by you. 2S923SJ 36 RECEIVED TIMENOv. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 38/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited to time or location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffin his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiff fails to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define or identify the type of asbestos products or the "injury resulting from the use" of same. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as fellows: All documents responsive to this request have been produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24 . Produce any photographs ofasbestos products in place or asbestos products being fabricated and/or utilized at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24 j ' H, See response to Request for Production No. 7. _ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 Produce any photographs of warning signs or other statements in place at any time in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products or asbestos in place at any time in defendants facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if felly stated, herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. It is over broad because it is not limited in time or to location and it includes warnings or other statements having nothing to do with asbestos. Even assuming the request were limited to the time periods and locations alleged in plaintiffs petition and through discovery and it exclusively concerned asbestos related warnings, answering it would be unduly burdensome because plaintifffails to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. The request is vague since it does not define or identify asbestos products or "asbestos in place." 2S923_1 37 RECEIVED TIHEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 39/48 RightFAX i" Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon information and belief defendant has not located any documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION \Q. 26 Produce any documents indicating in any way that individuals claimed injury to his lungs as a result ofexposure to asbestos at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26 See Response to Request Nos. 1 and 6. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27 Produce any memoranda, writings or other documents, including but not limited to corporate minutes, which in any way contain a discussion ofthe hazards or potential hazards ofasbestos. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. } >* Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguousj oyer broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead.to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad because it is not limited in time or to location, and insofar as the request relates to documents that "contain a discussion of the hazards or potential hazards of asbestos," is not limited in subject matter to any type ofdusts. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and without admitting the hazards or potential hazards ofasbestos, defendant responds as follows: See documents produced to counsel for plaintiffs in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28 Produce any insurance policies that might cover the claims made by plaintiffin this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28 . The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon is self-insured for purposes ofthis litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 Produce any minutes or other notes or records from ary meetings at which the hazards and/or potential hazards ofasbestos were discussed by officers, agents, and/or employees ofdefendant. 28923*_l 38 RECEIVED TiMENOV. 13. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 40/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29 See Response to No. 27. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 Produce any and all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills oflading, purchase orders, or other documents ofa similar nature related to the purchase and/or installation of asbestos- containing products at defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30 See-Response to Request No. 3. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 Produce any and all records, documents, memoranda or other writing reflecting in any way any inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts." This request specifically includes any and all ofyour plants or facilities where asbestos-containing products were used and/or in place at any time. * RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO, 3\ t4 'J The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information since it is expressly not limited in time or to location and includes counts for all dusts. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff in his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintifffoils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon The request is also vague since it does not (1) identify the type or specific location of asbestos, (2) define "dust counts" or "asbestos-containing products,"or (3) specify a unit of measure or a type of application. Subject to and without waving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See documents produced to counsel for plaintiffo in the Emery matter. 2S9238_l 39 RECEIVED TIMEH07. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 41/48 RightFAX REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32 In the event that defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32 See Response to Request No. 31. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 Please produce any and all reports, writings (whether published or unpublished) and/or other documentation written, created and/or edited by any of your experts that in any way pertain to asbestos and the hazards and/or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffolly stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Without specific identification of the document or documents sought, this request demands the production ofwork product and requires counsel to render a legal opinion ofwhat is relevant in this case. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad because it seeks documents written/created/edited by experts regardless ofthe date. To the extent the request seeks expert writings created near or after retention ofthe expert, the writing is not discoverable under Louisiana law and particularly Weidenbacher v. St. PaulFire & Marine Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 1160, La. 1977, and Article 1424 ofthe Louisiana Code ofCivil Procedure. Subject to these objections, Exxon has not yet designated experts to testify in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34 Produce any and all documents provided to any expert or feet witnesses as a result ofthe filing ofthis case. 28923*_I 40 he ED T1MEH07. 18. 2-: 33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 42/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if My stated herein. Defendant has not yet designated its experts. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35 Produce any and all curriculum vitae and/or resumes ofany ofthe experts and/or persons with knowledge of relevant facts that you have listed in your Answers to Interrogatories and/or on your Witness List. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3S See documents produced in the Emery matter. Defendant will supplement this response as soon as possible. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36 Produce any and all documents which will be used at the time oftrial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of defendant's enumerated; defenses in defendant's most recently filed Answer. ' RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36 . To the extent the request seeks information on when the possible exhibits may be used, i.e., either on direct or cross examination, it is asking for work product which is not discoverable. To the extent the request is seeking possible impeachment evidence, same is likewise not discoverable. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant does not yet know all ofits exhibits. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 Produce a copy of any and all regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which govern the safety ofthe defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence as well as a legal conclusion. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location and it concerns all safety regulations regardless ofwhether asbestos is involved. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiffin his petition 28923S_1 41 RECEI-'ED TIHEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 43/48 RightFAX SH OT through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiff foils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows, see documents produced in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 Produce any and all documents which contain, relate or refer to complaints regarding safety conditions and/or work place conditions at the defendant's facilities. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38 See objections and response to Request Nos. 1 and 6. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 Produce any and all documents which contain, relate or refer to complaints by union representatives of the employees at the defendant's plant regarding safety conditions and/or work place conditions and/or work place conditions at the plant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39 See Response to Request No. 38. _ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 J -t Produce airy documents, organizational charts or rosters, which identify the members ofthe management at the defendant's facilities and his areas ofresponsibility. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff in his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintifffoils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See Bate Stamp Nos. EM003823 - EM003825. 289238.1 42 RECEDED TiMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 44/48 RightFAX ~*c REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41 Produce any and all Interrogatory answers, responses to requests for production and/or responses to requests for admissions filed by defendant in arxy action wherein the plaintiff was claiming an injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it includes any action regardless of time or location of alleged exposure. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff in his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintifffoils to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon The request is also irrelevant because suits filed by other individuals have no bearing on the instant litigation. The request is vague since it does not define or identify the particular asbestos- containing products. .- V' Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See documents previously produced to counsel for plaintifis in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42 Produce airy and all correspondence, memoranda, documents and/or other communications between defendant and any of its workers! compensation carriers regarding the haaards ofasbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant is self-insured and, therefore, there are no workers' compensation carriers. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43 - Produce any and all correspondence, construction contracts and/or other documents which discuss, relate or refer to services performed at any ofdefendant's facilities by the following entities: Anco Insulations; ACandS (a/k/a Armstrong Contracting and Supply); Ford Bacon and Davis Construction Corporation; Jacobs Constructors; the McCarty Corporation; Hullinghorst, National 28923S_1 43 RECEIVED IIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 45/48 RightFAX ir Maintenance Corporation; Nichols Construction Corporation; Raytheon Engineers and Constructors; Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation; Tidewater Construction Corporation; Reiliy-Benton Company, Inc. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type of document requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff in his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffMs to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. The request is also vague since it does not define "discuss, relate or refer" to the subject mattey. .. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows; See invoices, purchase orders, etc. previously produced in Emery. . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44 Produce any and all correspondence, memoranda and/or documents regarding asbestos, ifany, which were provided by defendant to contractors performing services on defendant's premises. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 44 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Further, this request does not identify the documents to be produced with specificity and does not identify a class or a type ofdocument requested. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location. Even assuming the request were limited to the times and locations alleged by plaintiff in his petition or through discovery, answering it would be unduly burdensome since plaintiffMs to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon. 2S923SJ 44 RECEIVED TiMENOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 46/48 RightFAX v Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See documents produced to plaintiffs' counsel in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45 Any and all material safety data sheets for any asbestos-containing product used at defendant's plant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ, 45 See Response to Request No. 20. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46 Produce any and all deposition transcripts or trial transcripts of any witness taken in any action wherein the plaintiffwas claiming an injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at defendanfs plant and defendant and/or defendant's officers and directors were a party to the litigation, either as a defendant, cross-defendant or third-party defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46 See objections and response to Request Nos. 1,6 and 26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47 J Produce any and all Interrogatory answers, responses to Request for Production and/or responses to Requests for Admissions filed by defendant and/or defendant's officers and directors in any action wherein the plaintiff was claiming an injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos- containing products at defendant's plant. RESPONSE TO REOUEST_NO,_4? See response to Request No. 46. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48 Produce any and all safety manuals and/or safety handbooks provided to defendant's employees at any time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Exxon further objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, over broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The request is over broad and seeks irrelevant information because it is not limited in time or to location nor to Exxon employee as opposed to employees ofcontractors. Assuming the request were limited 2S923S.1 45 RECEIVED TIMEHOV. 18. 2:33PM Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 47/48 RightFAX * to strictly Exxon employees employed at the same time periods and locations alleged by plaintiff answering the request would be unduly burdensome because plaintiffMs to identify with sufficient specificity when and where he worked at Exxon, Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: See documents produced to plaintiffs' counsel in the Emery matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49 Produce any and all written or tangible documentation, including but not limited to reports, x-rays, medical notes and/or descriptions of any kind, evidencing or referencing the medical examination program(s), medical monitoring program(s) or other medical surveillance provided, offered or sponsored by the defendant, its facility, or its insurance carrier(s) with regard to plaintiff or other workers, exposed or potentially exposed to asbestos at the defendant's facility. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49 The general objections are incorporated in this response as if fully stated herein. Subject to these objections, Exxon refers plaintiffs' counsel to the documents it produced in the Emery matter. Defendant, as ofthe date ofthese responses, has not located any documents which pertain specifically to plaintiff. - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50 Produce all documents which evidence defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale or transfer of ownership ofdefendant's premises. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50 See response to Interrogatory No. 3. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51 Produce all indemnity agreements, assignments ofliability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to defendant's premises and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51 The general objections are incorporated in this response as iffully stated herein. Subject to those objections, Exxon states that is has no documents responsive to this request which pertain to the subject matter ofthis case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52 All records identified in Interrogatory No. 10(g). 2S923t_l RECEIVED TiMSNOV. 18. 2:33PM ~ '' 3 *t v Kean, Miller L.L.P. 11/18/1998 14:34 PAGE 48/48 RightFAX RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52 There is no Interrogatory No. 10(g). Submitted by: Gary A. Bezet (#3036) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D'ARMOND, McCOWAN & JARMAN Post Office Box 3513 One American Place, 22nd Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Telephone: (225)387-0999 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing document has been mailed, postage * prepaid, to all counsel of record. Baton Rouge, T-ouisiana, this 18* day of November, 1998. 289238_1 47 RECEIVED TIMEROV. 18. 2:33PM