Document z4o87NGXLGYZxgM8znyN1Yg7

ft 1 THOMAS E. PFALZER - State Bar No. 85261 JOSEPH E. FINKEL - State Bar No. 167397 2 MCNAMARA, HOUSTON, DODGE, McCLURE & NEY 1211 Newell Avenue, Second Floor 3 Post Office Box 5288 Walnut Creek, California 94596 4 Telephone: (510) 939-5330 Facsimile: (510) 939-0203 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 RILEY STOKER CORPORATION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 IN RE: ) NO. 828684 ) 11 COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION ) DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER ) CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO 12 ) PLAINTIFFS' STANDARD GENERAL ) ORDER 129 INTERROGATORIES 13 ) ) 14 ) 15 16 Riley Stoker Corporation ("Riley Stoker" or the "Company") , 17 pursuant to and under the protection of the California Rules of 18 Civil Procedure, hereby files these responses to Plaintiffs' 19 Standard Interrogatories (hereinafter "Interrogatories"). 20 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 21 These Interrogatories concern events which occurred years 22 ago. The responses are believed to be accurate as of the date of 23 filing, but Riley Stoker Corporation's investigation of the 24 underlying facts is continuing. If further discovery of additional 25 facts, adds meaning to the known fac^s, or establishes new factual 26 conclusions or legal contentions, ' these responses will be sup 27 plemented if required by applicable law. Thus, the following 28 SfcM, fcNey Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 responses are made without prejudice to Riley Stoker Corporation's 2 right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or 3 facts Riley Stoker Corporation may later recall. Riley Stoker 4 Corporation accordingly reserves the right to amend or supplement 5 any and all responses herein, if permitted or required by ap 6 plicable law, as additional facts are ascertained, or as the 7 contentions of the plaintiffs herein may be discovered or amended. 8 Plaintiffs' Interrogatories are addressed to a corporation 9 which has no independent knowledge of the information supplied in 10 these responses. Riley Stoker Corporation refers to and is limited 11 to the officers and directors of Riley Stoker Corporation located 12 in Worcester, Massachusetts, and those Riley Stoker Corporation 13 employees who the Company believes are responsible for and in 14 possession of corporate documents or information that is responsive 15 to plaintiffs' Interrogatories. The information supplied in these 16 responses is based on the knowledge of Riley Stoker Corporation's 17 employees and authorized agents as to which the affiant may not 18 have personal knowledge of the matter stated herein. 19 The responses contained herein are made in a good faith 20 effort to supply as much factual information and as much 21 specification of legal contentions as is presently known, but in no 22 way should prejudice Riley Stoker Corporation in relation to 23 further discovery, research or analysis. 24 Neither Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it 25 controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, 26 mined, manufactured, distributed gr processed, as Riley Stoker 27 Corporation understands these terms, any asbestos-containing 28 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean do*. St Ncy Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 Interroaatories 2 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 2 Certain boilers designed by Riley Stoker, however, had components 3 that contained asbestos. 4 Riley Stoker Corporation's product line of industrial and 5 utility fuel burning equipment is marketed and sold primarily to 6 large, sophisticated and knowledgeable commercial customers whose 7 architects, engineers, consultants or other agents frequently 8 specified the type, brand and quality of component parts to be 9 utilized in the installation of their boilers. Moreover, component 10 manufacturers supplied product selection and instructions for 11 proper and safe application, use and installation of their asbestos 12 products. 13 Riley Stoker Corporation incorporates by reference this 14 preliminary statement into the response to each interrogatory. 15 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 16 Riley Stoker Corporation objects to these Interrogatories on 17 the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, beyond 18 the scope of product identification in this litigation and not 19 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or 20 admissible evidence. Riley Stoker Corporation also objects to the 21 form, as well as the ambiguous and compound nature of many of the 22 Interrogatories, in addition to the false predicate contained 23 therein. 24 Moreover, these Interrogatories call for information which is 25 necessarily outside of the scope of Riley Stoker's knowledge, and 26 therefore, any response is formulated on the basis of the best 27 information available to Riley Stoker. 28 sfc*. StNey Any response by Riley Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Resnonsee to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 Stoker Corporation to these In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 Interrogatories does not in any way constitute a waiver as to any 2 information which is protected by the attorney-client and/or 3 attorney work product privileges, or any other proprietary rights 4 or material including, but not limited to, trade secrets. 5 Moreover, Riley Stoker Corporation objects to any 6 interrogatory which implies or assumes that any individual 7 plaintiff actually has an asbestos related disease or any injury 8 allegedly related to asbestos. Riley Stoker Corporation in no way 9 admits, by responding to these Interrogatories, that any plaintiff 10 has an asbestos related disease or injury. The burden of proof is 11 on each plaintiff to prove that he/she has an asbestos related 12 disease, and Riley Stoker has a constitutional right to deny same. 13 Moreover, Riley Stoker Corporation objects to any 14 interrogatory which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 15 discovery of admissible evidence. All of these objections are 16 incorporated by reference and adopted as to each and every 17 interrogatory contained herein. 18 LIMITATIONS 19 1. Trial preparation and factual investigation are ongoing. 20 Accordingly, Riley Stoker Corporation's responses to these 21 Interrogatories are based solely on information known to it at the 22 time of the service of these answers. Riley Stoker Corporation 23 reserves the right, therefore, to make reference at trial, or in 24 any other hearings, in this action, to facts and documents not 25 identified in these answers, the existence or relevance of which is 26 subsequently discovered by Riley Stoker or its counsel. 27 2. Plaintiff's Interrogatories are addressed to persons who 28 EtCML, fc Ny have no independent personal knowledge of the information supplied Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 A In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 in these responses. The information supplied in these responses to 2 Interrogatories is based upon information as to which the affiant 3 may not have personal knowledge of the matter stated herein. 4 INTERROGATORY RESPONSES 5 RESPONSE NO. 1 6 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 7 that it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending 8 litigation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 9 of admissible evidence. Riley Stoker further objects to this 10 interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information protected 11 by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product 12 doctrine. Furthermore, Riley Stoker states that it compiled the 13 information in these responses from various sources. In doing so, 14 Riley Stoker has complied with its obligations under applicable 15 rules of court to conduct a reasonable investigation in order to 16 prepare its responses, and objects to identifying individuals as 17 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 18 of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley 19 Stoker states: James S. Brantl, General Counsel, DB Riley, Inc., 20 P.O. Box 15040, Worcester, MA. 01615-0040. 21 RESPONSE NO. 2 22 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 which, together with 23 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 24 RESPONSE NO. 3 25 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 26 that it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending 27 litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 28 of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley Stot, fcNcy Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's ^- - - *. r* Dr^nr lOQ In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 Stoker states that it is a corporation organized under the laws of 2 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See attached corporate history. 3 Riley Stoker further states that if this interrogatory is asking 4 whether Riley Stoker is licensed to do business in California, 5 Riley Stoker states that it is licensed to do business in 6 California. 7 RESPONSE NO. 4 8 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 which, together with 9 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. See also 10 attached corporate history. 11 RESPONSE NO. 5 12 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 which, together with 13 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 14 RESPONSE NO. 6 15 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 which, together with 16 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 17 RESPONSE NO. 7 18 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 which, together with 19 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 20 RESPONSE NO. 8 21 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 which, together with 22 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 23 RESPONSE NO. 9 24 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 25 that it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending !, 26 litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 27 of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley 28 StO, INty Stoker states that none of its employees is designated as the Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684  1 "custodian of business records." 2 RESPONSE NO. 10 3 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 4 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 7 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 8 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 9 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 10 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 11 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 12 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 13 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 14 RESPONSE NO. 11 15 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 16 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 17 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 19 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 20 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 21 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 22 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 23 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 24 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 25 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 26 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 27 Riley Stoker further states that it has never employed a medical 28 director, industrial hygienist or physician. Stoa, & Ncy Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 RESPONSE NO. 12 2 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 that it is vague, ambiguous, irrelevant to the subject matter of 4 the pending litigation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to 5 the discovery of admissible evidence. 6 RESPONSE NO. 13 7 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 8 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 11 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 12 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 13 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 14 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 15 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 16 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 17 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 18 Riley Stoker further states that it was never a member and never 19 paid dues for a representative to be a member of the listed 20 organizations. 21 RESPONSE NO. 14 22 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 13 which, together with 23 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 24 RESPONSE NO. 15 25 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 26 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly//burdensome, and not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that prior to no*, fcNey iW Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 I nt rron flto 8 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 1973 it had never received any documents containing results or 2 conclusions of any studies and/or tests conducted by Bonsib for 3 Standard Oil of New Jersey relating to asbestos exposure in the 4 workplace or the human health conseguences of exposure to asbestos. 5 RESPONSE NO. 16 6 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 7 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that prior to 10 1973 it had never received a copy of any portion of any studies 11 and/or tests conducted by any insurance company, including but not 12 limited to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Aetna Insurance 13 relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health 14 consequences of exposure to asbestos. 15 RESPONSE NO. 17 16 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 17 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that prior to 20 1973 it had never received any documents containing results or 21 conclusions of any studies and/or tests conducted by any 22 laboratory, including but not limited to, the Saranac Laboratory 23 relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or the human health 24 consequences of exposure to asbestos. 25 RESPONSE NO. 18 26 Riley Stoker objects to thi interrogatory on the grounds 27 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 28 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably doa, i Nty Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684  1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 2 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that prior to 1973 it 3 never maintained a library (or libraries) which contained books, 4 articles, periodicals, journals, and/or reference materials that 5 related to the subjects of asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, 6 safety and/or occupational disease. 7 RESPONSE NO. 19 8 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 9 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it has no 12 record indicating that prior to 1980 it exchanged documents or 13 communicated with any person or other company expressly regarding 14 the results of tests and/or studies relating to asbestos exposure 15 in the workplace or the human health consequences of exposure- to 16 asbestos. Discovery is continuing. Riley Stoker therefore 17 reserves the right to supplement this answer. 18 RESPONSE NO. 20 19 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 20 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 22 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that no 23 employee or designee of Riley Stoker has testified as a 24 representative of Riley Stoker before the Occupational Safety and 25 Health Administration, the National Institute of Occupational 26 Safety and Health, or any committee' or subcommittee of the United 27 States Congress relating to asbestos exposure in the workplace or 28 the human health consequences of exposure to asbestos. rtoa, &N<y Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 in In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 RESPONSE NO. 21 2 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 6 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 7 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 8 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 9 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 10 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 11 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 12 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 13 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 14 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 15 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 16 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 17 RESPONSE NO. 22 18 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 19 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 22 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 23 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 24 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 25 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 26 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 27 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 28 StOB, fcNey thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 2 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 3 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 4 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 5 RESPONSE NO. 23 6 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 7 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 9 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 10 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 11 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 12 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 13 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 14 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 15 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 16 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 17 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 18 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 19 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 20 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 21 RESPONSE NO. 24 22 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 23 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 24 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 26 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 27 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 28 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, ctoa, k Ney Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 2 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 3 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 4 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 5 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 6 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 7 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 8 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 9 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. Riley Stoker further states: no. 10 RESPONSE NO. 25 11 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 12 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 13 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 15 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does -not 16 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 17 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 18 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 19 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 20 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 21 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 22 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 23 Riley Stoker further states that it was named in two workers' 24 compensation proceedings in which the claimants sought compensation 25 for alleged asbestos-related injuries. Ernest R. Moreno v. Marine 26 Engineering & Supply Co., et. al../claim number L.A. 76-144, was 27 brought in the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of 28 stoa, t Hey w California in 1947. The suit was dismissed as to Riley Stoker. In Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 ---------- - - i In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 or around August 1956, Riley Stoker appears to have received a 2 Notice of Hearing from the Workers' Compensation Department of the 3 State of Michigan in connection with Lewis Munqer v. Armstrong Cork 4 Co.. Travelers Insurance Co.. So far as Riley Stoker is able to 5 determine, neither claim included any "report or communication" 6 regarding the alleged hazards of asbestos apart from the making of 7 the claim itself. Discovery is continuing. Riley Stoker therefore 8 reserves the right to amend or supplement this response. 9 RESPONSE NO. 26 10 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 11 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 12 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it 15 anticipates it has sufficient insurance coverage with which- to 16 satisfy reasonable judgments in these cases. 17 RESPONSE NO. 27 18 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 19 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 21 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 22 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 23 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 24 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 25 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 26 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 27 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 28 stoa. St Ny thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 -1 A In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 RESPONSE NO. 28 2 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it has 6 never mined, milled, supplied, imported, processed, distributed, 7 marketed, sold or brokered raw asbestos. 8 RESPONSE NO. 29 9 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 28 which, together with 10 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 11 RESPONSE NO. 30 12 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 13 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 15 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does -not 16 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 17 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 18 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 19 manufactured, distributed, processed, imported, marketed, labeled 20 or brokered as Riley Stoker Corporation understands these terms, 21 asbestos-containing products, which Riley Stoker Corporation 22 understands to mean thermal insulation products that contain 23 asbestos as an ingredient. 24 RESPONSE NO. 31 25 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 30 which, together with 26 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 27 RESPONSE NO. 32 28 Not applicable. SfOft, Sc Hey Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 Interrogatories 15 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 RESPONSE NO. 33 2 Not applicable. 3 RESPONSE NO. 34 4 See Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 29 and 31 which, together 5 with objections stated therein, are incorporated by reference. 6 RESPONSE NO. 35 7 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 8 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it did not 11 enter into any agreements for the rebranding of products. 12 RESPONSE NO. 36 13 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 35 which, together with 14 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 15 RESPONSE NO. 37 16 See Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2 9 & 31 which, together 17 with objections stated therein, are incorporated by reference. 18 RESPONSE NO. 38 19 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 20 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 22 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 23 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 24 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 25 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 26 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 27 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 28 stew, t Key >W products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 2 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 3 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 4 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 5 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. Riley Stoker further states that 6 an identifying name plate was attached to each Riley Stoker boiler. 7 RESPONSE NO. 39 8 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 9 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 11 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 12 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 13 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 14 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 15 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 16 understands these terms, asbestos-containing products, which Riley 17 Stoker Corporation understands to mean thermal insulation products 18 that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 19 RESPONSE NO. 40 20 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 21 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 23 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 24 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 25 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 26 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 27 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 28 stem, fe Ncy understands these terms, asbestos-containing products, which Riley Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation'6 Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 Stoker Corporation understands to mean thermal insulation products 2 that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 3 RESPONSE NO. 41 4 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 5 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 6 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 8 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 9 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 10 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 11 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 12 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 13 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 14 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 15 RESPONSE NO. 42 16 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 17 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it did not 20 have a contract unit. 21 RESPONSE NO. 43 22 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 42 which, together with 23 objections stated therein, is incorporated by reference. 24 RESPONSE NO. 44 25 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds v 26 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly/burdensome, and not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that sometime SfcM, & Key Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 after 1972, Riley Stoker became aware that some diseases were 2 alleged to be associated with exposure to asbestos. Riley Stoker 3 does not know precisely how or when it became aware of such 4 allegation. 5 RESPONSE NO. 45 6 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 7 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 8 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that sometime 11 after 1972, Riley Stoker became aware that some diseases were 12 alleged to be associated with exposure to asbestos. Riley Stoker 13 does not know precisely how or when it became aware of such 14 allegation. 15 RESPONSE NO. 46 16 See Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 45 & 4 6 which, together 17 with objections stated therein, are incorporated by reference. 18 RESPONSE NO. 47 19 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 20 that it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending 21 litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 22 of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley 23 Stoker states that it does not concede that its boilers are or were 24 "asbestos-containing products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any 25 company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in has 26 ever made, mined, manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley 27 Stoker Corporation understands these terms, raw asbestos or 28 asbestos-containing products, which Riley Stoker Corporation slot, fcNcy Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' Genera) Order 129 1_.----------- T Q In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 understands to mean thermal insulation products that contain 2 asbestos as an ingredient. Furthermore, this interrogatory appears 3 to be directed to manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. 4 As Riley Stoker did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, 5 this interrogatory is inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 6 RESPONSE NO. 48 7 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 8 that it is irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending 9 litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 10 of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Riley 11 Stoker states that it does not concede that its boilers are or were 12 "asbestos-containing products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any 13 company it controlled, purchased, or acquired any interest in has 14 ever made, mined, manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley 15 Stoker Corporation understands these terms, raw asbestos or 16 asbestos-containing products, which Riley Stoker Corporation 17 understands to mean thermal insulation products that contain 18 asbestos as an ingredient. Furthermore, this interrogatory appears 19 to be directed to manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. 20 As Riley Stoker did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, 21 this interrogatory is inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 22 RESPONSE NO. 49 23 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 24 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 27 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 28 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, slot, Sk Ney Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 2 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 3 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 4 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 5 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 6 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 7 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 8 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 9 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 10 RESPONSE NO. 50 11 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 12 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does 15 not concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 16 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 17 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 18 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 19 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 20 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 21 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 22 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 23 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did 24 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 25 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 26 ///// / 27 ///// 28 ///// fcNcy Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828664 1 RESPONSE NO. 51 2 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 4 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it never 7 owned or operated a railroad. 8 RESPONSE NO. 52 9 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 10 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the 11 subject matter of the pending litigation, and not reasonably 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 Without waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it never 14 owned or operated a shipyard. 15 RESPONSE NO. 53 16 Riley Stoker objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 17 that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without 19 waiving its objections, Riley Stoker states that it does not 20 concede that its boilers are or were "asbestos-containing 21 products." Riley Stoker Corporation nor any company it controlled, 22 purchased, or acquired any interest in has ever made, mined, 23 manufactured, distributed or processed, as Riley Stoker Corporation 24 understands these terms, raw asbestos or asbestos-containing 25 products, which Riley Stoker Corporation understands to mean 26 thermal insulation products that contain asbestos as an ingredient. 27 Furthermore, this interrogatory appears to be directed to 28 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. As Riley Stoker did sioa, & Ncy w Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 Irrterroaatones 22 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 1 not manufacture asbestos-containing products, this interrogatory is 2 inapplicable as to Riley Stoker. 3 DATED: June 20, 1997 4 McNAMARA, HOUSTON, DODGE, McCLURE & NEY 5 6 Thomas E. Pfalzer 7 orneys for Def4ndant RILEY STOKER CORPORATION 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 / 26 / / 27 28 rto*. t Ncy Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' General Order 129 I nt* non ato ri 73 In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation SFSC #828684 RILEY STOKER CORPORATE HLSTORX 1213 1 SANFORD RILEY STOKER COMPANY (incorporated) 1212 I MURPHY IRON WORKS (purchased) 1922 I UNDERFEED STOKER COMPANY (purchased) GROUND COAL ENGINEERING COMPANY (purchased) BERNITZ FURNACE APPLIANCE COMPANY (purdmed) 192* i UNITED MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY (purchased) UNDERFEED STOKER, MURPHY IRON WORKS & UNITED MACHINE AND MANUFACTURING (merged with Sanford R0cy Stoker Company) A-W. CASH COMPANY (becomes direct subsidiary: tame hwr changed to Casbco. Inc.) RILEY ENGINEERING SUPPLY COMPANY. LTD ' (acquired) 1927 I BERNITZ FURNACE APPLIANCE COMPANY (sold circa. 1927) 1931 1 BADENHAUSEN CORPORATION (becomes tuhtidiaty) 1222 I RILEY ENGINEERING SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (sold) 1955 I CASH STANDARD STACON COMPANY, INC. (organised as subsidiary of A.W. Cash) im i CASH STANDARD STACON COMPANY (dissolved) I960 I UNION IRON WORKS (becomes subsidiary) J2fi2 I BADENHAUSEN CORP. (merged) UNION IRON WORKS (merged) BROS MICHIGAN DIV. OF AMERICAN IIOI3T AND DERRICK COMPANY (purchased) 1221 I CASHCO, INC. (disposed) m I ABBOTT HEAT EXCHANGER CORP. (purchased and renamed Riley Southwest Cotp.) 12S2 I RILEY SOUTHWEST CORP.'. (disposed) VERIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS) ) COUNTY OF WORCESTER ) ss JAMES S. BRANTL, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an authorized agent of DB Riley, Inc., and that he verifies the foregoing Defendant, DB Riley, Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiffs' Standard Interrogatories for and on behalf of DB Riley, Inc.; that of the matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of deponent; that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel of DB Riley, Inc., and deponent is informed that the facts stated therein are true. Jatrjes S. Brantl SWORN TO BEFORE ME and subscribed in my presence this ** day of f{____________, 1997. (Y\ Me douu. nNotary Public d My/Commission expires: 3, Joe l WILLtAM K. HOUSTON. JR. c.RICHARD E. DODGE 'tuoiAs McClure HAEL J. NEY 4AS a BEATTY RT M. SLATTERY JMAS E. PFALZER WILLIAM J. OIFFENDERFER rAlARA, Houston, Dodge, McClui^ Me Ney ATTORNEYS AT LAW OUY O. SORQES ROGER J. BROTHERS RAYMONO L MacKAY STUART CHARLES QILUAM RICARDO A. MARTINEZ DIANNE KREMEN COLVILLE R. DEWEY WHEELER PLEASE RESPOND TO: P.O. BOX 5288 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK OFFICE 1211 NEWELL AVENUE SECOND FLOOR WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-5331 ELLEN H. NOLTINQ JANE LUCIANO USA R. ROBERTS MARTIN J. AMBACHER DENISE BILLUPS-SLONE KATHLEEN A. NELSON 8. LYNN APPLETON BRENOAN J. DOOLEY JOSEPH E. FINKEL MICHAEL K. WALTON J. WESLEY SMITH OONALD A. ODELL JENIFER K. LEECE PAUL E. VAN HOOMISSEN CYNTHIA E. MILLER PAUL B. WALSH WILLIAM T. NAGLE PATRICK M. TERRY ERIC J. MEDEIROS KRI8TEN A. PICO DANIEL J. McNAMARA, RETIRED TELEPHONE: (510) 939-5330 FACSIMILE: (510) 939-0203 June 27, 1997 Jack K. Clapper, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK K. CLAPPER Marine Office Plaza 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 140 Sausalito, CA 94965 SOLANO COUNTY OFFICE 639 KENTUCKY STREET, SUITE 110 FAIRFIELD, CA 94533-5530 (707) 427-3998 % c_ Re: In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation Ct. & Action No.: SFSC #828684 Our Client: Riley Stoker Corporation Dear Mr. Clapper: Per your request, enclosed please find DEFENDANT RILEY STOKER CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' GENERAL ORDER 129 INTERROGATORIES. Very truly yours, McNAMARA, HOUSTON, DODGE, McCLURE & NEY Enclosure Rowena Walker