Document yq31QxwaEvv3G9YkOveX54pX

NO. 99-05894-K JOHNNY FRANKLIN GIFFORD, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. OWENS CORNING (a/k/a OWENS CORNING CORPORATION), et al., Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF SAM ELLIOTT DIVINE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine, by and through his attorney, Stephanie Finch, Baron & Budd, The Centrum, Suite 1100, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219 Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules"), Defendant Celanese Ltd. (referenced herein as "Defendant" or "Celanese") submits these First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions Propounded on Premises Defendant Celanese Ltd. as follows: GENERAL RESPONSES. OBJECTIONS AND ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE Defendant makes the following general objections to each and every request and interrogatory directed to it: 1. Celanese objects to Plaintiffs Instruction No. 1. Defendant may produce non-privileged responsive documents in the manner in which they are kept in the ordinary course of business. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 1 74532 1 2. Defendant objects to the interrogatories and requests to the extent that they seek to compel the disclosure of information specifically exempted from discovery by the privileges afforded in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Article V. of the Texas Rules of Evidence ("Rules of Evidence"), including the attorney/client privilege, the joint defense privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or the investigative privilege. Withholding of documents or information on the basis of privilege, if any, will be specifically noted as part of Defendant's objections and responses after the discovery request calling for such privileged information and/or documents, if any. 3. Defendant objects to paragraph one of the DEFINITIONS regarding "Defendant," "You," "Your," and "Your Company" and paragraph three regarding "persons" because they are overly broad and unduly burdensome and pertain to corporations other than those who are parties to this suit. Defendant also objects to paragraphs one and three because they include Defendant's attorneys; information and things protected by the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine are not discoverable. 4. Defendant objects to paragraph two of the DEFINITIONS because the definition of the word "document" and the instructions regarding "possession, custody or control" are overly broad, seeks information specifically exempted from discovery by the privileges afforded in the Rules and Rule 503 of the Rules of Evidence, including the attorney work product doctrine, and the attorney client privilege because it exceeds the scope of Rule 192.3 of the Rules. Throughout these responses, Celanese will assume that the word will have its commonly used meaning, as set forth in Rule 192.3(b), and will respond accordingly. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 2 74532.1 5. Defendant objects to the definitions of "identify" contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the DEFINITIONS because they are overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. 6. Defendant objects to DEFINITION 6 to the extent information is sought concerning asbestos in a non-friable form. 7. Celanese further objects to any discovery request seeking to charge it with knowledge or information held by its "predecessors or subsidiaries" or requiring it to provide information regarding plants other than the ones identified by plaintiff Sam Elliot Divine in his deposition testimony. Celanese object to DEFINITION 18, DEFENDANT'S PREMISES, because, according to his deposition testimony, plaintiff Sam Elliot Divine never worked at any Celanese plant "located at Corpus Christi, Texas." Celanese operated multiple facilities and employs thousands of workers. Accordingly, it is unduly burdensome, excessively expensive and harassing to require Celanese to respond to these discovery requests as to all plants and/or any plant at which plaintiff was never present. 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they are unlimited in time. 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs requests to the extent that they necessarily seek disclosure of trade secrets, proprietary material and other confidential information protected from discovery by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. The presence of an objection does not mean that Celanese possesses nonprivileged information responsive to a discovery request. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 3 74532 1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS Each of the following specific responses and objections incorporate by reference the above-stated general responses, objections and assertions of privilege. Subject to the foregoing, Celanese specifically responds as follows: Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 4 74532 1 RESPONSES REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Plaintiff worked on premises owned by Defendant or by a predecessorin-interest of Defendant. RESPONSE: Celanese admits that Plaintiffalleges in his Fourth Amended Petition that he worked at Celanese's Bishop, Texas and Deer Park, Texas plants, and that he alleges in his deposition testimony that he also worked at Celanese's Clear Lake Plant. Celanese has no documents or information reasonably available to it to confirm Plaintiffs statements. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 6: Produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees of contractors who were on your premises between the dates 1965 and 1977, including but not limited to signin logs, gate records, visitor's logs, identification badge logs and procedures, and other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 oftheTexas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 3. It is vague and ambiguous; 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome; and 5. According to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Celanese states that, after a reasonably diligent search, it is unable to locate any relevant, responsive documents. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 5 74532.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving your facilities, between the years 1965 and 1977, including but not limited to fingerprinting or other methods of identifying contractor employees at your premises, and specifically including any fingerprinting or other records identifying the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 3. It is vague and ambiguous; 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome; and 5. According to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Celanese states that, after a reasonably diligent search, it is unable to locate any relevant, responsive documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the contractors who worked on your premises between the years 1965 and 1977 and for each, state: a. The type of work performed by the contractor b. The dates such work was performed c. Identify your employee responsible for monitoring, verifying, or instructing concerning these services to be performed by such contractors. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 6 74532.1 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is not limited to the plant at issue in this case, and it seeks information about a plant at which plaintiff never worked; and 4. It is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, according to plaintiffs deposition testimony, he never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined in these discovery requests. As for the independent contractors that employed plaintiff, see plaintiffs deposition testimony for their identities and a description of the work performed by them. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff, in the course and scope of his work as an employee of an independent contractor, worked around Defendant's employees who were using and/or applying asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see deposition transcript of plaintiff Sam Elliot Divine. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 7 74532.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce any and all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use by you or your employees of any safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections and after a reasonably diligent inquiry, Celanese states that it is aware of no responsive materials. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify any and all warnings ever given by Defendant, if any, to Plaintiffs [sic] regarding the hazards of asbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 3. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, Celanese has no information at this time regarding warnings that may have been given directly to plaintiff Divine. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 8 74532 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State in detail what tests have been conducted with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and the results of any such test. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It seeks matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 2. It is unlimited in time, overly broad and unduly burdensome. 3. According to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises'' as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. Subject to these objections, see the documents produced to plaintiffs counsel on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189 10363. Given the passage of time, the referenced documents generally constitute Celanese's best source of information on these topics, and the information sought may be derived from them by plaintiff as easily as by defendant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 9 74532 1 Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N018: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, et al., in the Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 10 74532.1 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et at. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 11 74532.1 Discovery is ongoing and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 21: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, etal., :n the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 12 74532.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Discovery is ongoing, and Celanese reserves the right to supplement this response and/or produce additional responsive documents, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected, as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Celanese further objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous, and, because, according to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. See also plaintiffs deposition testimony in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: If you contend that Plaintiff does not suffer from the asbestos-related disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 13 74532 1 RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Ci\,i. Procedure. Subject to these objections, see all medical records and reports on plaintiff Sam Elliot Divine produced by all parties to this action. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2. It is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etai, in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etai, in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. See also Plaintiffs' Most Recent Petition and all medical records and reports regarding Sam Elliott Divine produced by all parties to this action. See also plaintiffs deposition testimony. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 14 74532.1 superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CD-rom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping or other system of information management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; and 3. It is unlimited in time or plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to these objections, see the documents bates-labeled 009189-009219 produced to plaintiffs counsel on September 29, 2000, in the Moake case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: Produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 15 74532.1 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 4. According to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, eta!., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, et al., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 4. According to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 16 74532.1 Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. See also Plaintiffs' Most Recent Petition and all medical records and reports regarding Sam Elliott Divine produced by all parties to this action. See also plaintiffs deposition testimony. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96: Please produce any printed material produced or published by Defendant containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos? RESPONSE: Celanese additionally objects to this request because: 1. It fails to describe with reasonable particularity the item or category of items sought to be inspected as required by Rule 196.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. It is vague and ambiguous; 3. It is unlimited in time and plant location and seeks matters that are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and 4. According to his own petition, plaintiff never worked on "Defendant's Premises" as that term is defined by plaintiff in these discovery requests. Subject to these objections, see the documents previously produced to you on July 13, 1999 in Cause No. 97-8-50,930-B, Arthur Dominguez, etal. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, etal., in the 135th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 000001-006430. See also the documents previously produced on September 29, 2000, in Cause No. 90G2055, Weldon R. Moake, etal. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, etal., in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, bates-labeled 9189-10363. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 17 74532.1 Respectfully submitted, KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP Angela 0L Hoyt State Bar No. 007967831 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77002-2730 (713) 220-8800 (713) 222-0843 (Facsimile) Michael E. Hutchins 360 Peachtree Street N.E., Ste. 1150 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 260-6080 (404) 260-6081 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CELANESE LTD. OF COUNSEL: Marc E. Kasowitz Hector Torres KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-1700 (212) 506-1800 (Facsimile) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via facsimile and/or hand delivery,and/or by United States mail, postage prepaid, to plaintiffs counsel of record on this"~?4 day of August, 2001. Defendant Celanese Ltd.'s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Sam Elliott Divine's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions - Page 18 74532 1