Document zXvapDaYbE3eanJj6mK0x7Mg

-i t i -J r "r `t n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ANTHONY MARIO GRECO et al., ---------- 5BE a i! sum? -againstA-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al.. Plaintiffs*; . CASE NOS. 323629-323678 r/ . - ".(HANNA, J.) IN RE: ALL BARON & BUDD ASBESTOS CASES Defendants. DEFENDANT RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Rapid-American Corporation ("Rapid") by its attorneys, McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co., L.P.A., hereby responds to and answers Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Rapid-American Corporation (the "Interrogatories") as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Rapid objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds that the specific interrogatories are over broad, burdensome, or oppressive, or call for information or for the production of documents which is not relevant to the subject matter ofthe litigation nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 2. Rapid objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek materials protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. 3. Rapid objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds that the specific interrogatories contain words or phrases susceptible to various and conflicting interpretations. Consequently, G:\RAS\OHIO\GRKCO.ROG responses to many ofthe interrogatories call for speculation on the part ofRapid. Rapid will respond to any ambiguous interrogatory based upon its reasonable interpretation of the particular interrogatory. 4. Rapid objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds that certain specific interrogatories are duplicative or overlapping of certain other interrogatories. Hence, answers or documents responsive to one interrogatory may also be responsive to several other interrogatories, making the categorization ofthose answers and documents unduly burdensome and oppressive. 5. Because Rapid neither by itself nor through a subsidiary corporation, does not now, nor has it in the past ever mined, milled, manufactured, distributed, installed, sold, marketed, produced, advertised for sale, processed, labeled or relabeled, or been associated, involved or related to any asbestos business or asbestos-containing products, certain of these interrogatories are not applicable. In such instances. Rapid has responded accordingly. . 6. Rapid does not now possess, nor has it ever possessed sufficient information to respond to the Interrogatories with respect to alleged predecessors. Hence, each response indicated herein speaks only to Rapid. 7. Where Rapid agrees to produce a document it will do so in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure at the place ofbusiness where such documents are located at a time to be agreed upon by counsel for both parties. 8. Neither Rapid's agreement to produce, nor its objection to the production of, any document or any category of documents, is to be construed as an admission that any document or documents exist within such category or categories. G:\RASU3WaGRECO.ROG -2- Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, all of which are incorporated by reference into each and every response herein below. Rapid responds as follows: ' CORPORATE NAME 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and later known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include 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. ANSWER: Paul Weiner, Vice-President ofRapid-American Corporation, 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. 1.1 Please identify all documents used, related to, or referred to in connection with the preparation of or answers to these Interrogatories and state the number of the Interrogatory and its subpart to each such document. ANSWER: Rapid objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, ambiguous, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; G:\RAS\OraOW3RECO.ROG -3 - (b) The state ofyour incorporation; (c) The address ofyour principal place ofbusiness; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio; (e) For each Defendant claming that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, list year by year the total amount ofincome received by the Defendant from entities in Ohio, any and all years that Defendant, as defined, has been licensed to do business in Ohio, and any real property owned at any time by Defendant or its present or past subsidiaries. ANSWER: Rapid objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, ambiguous, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to;lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection, Rapid-American Corporation is a Delaware corporation. Rapid's principal place of business is 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. Rapid was _ incorporated in 1981. 3. State Defendant's complete corporate or business history, including dates of incorporation, mergers, consolidations, reincorporations, and the like. Also provide historical information regarding all predecessors, prior names, asset purchases, acquisitions or spin-offs. In addition: a. if defendant or any of its predecessors or subsidiaries at any time purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired ANY ofthe assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity at any prior time engaged in any aspect ofthe placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce or the insuring of asbestos related risks, then please state the following as to each acquisition: G:\RAS\QHIOGRECO.ROG -4- b. the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, that entity's state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of in/corporation, and the name ofDefendant at the time of acquisition; c. the manner by which each such corporation, entity or interest therein, was acquired (e.g., merger, consolidation, change ofname, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); d. the date of each such acquisition; e. the state in which each such acquisition was effected; f. the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; g. whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of each such corporation or entity; h. ANSWER: identify each document reflecting or related to the history and/or transaction(s) set forth in answer to this Interrogatory. Rapid has never directly acquired any company that was itself involved in the manufacturing and/or sale of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. By agreement ofmerger dated October 5, 1972, Rapid-American Corporation, an Ohio corporation, did agree to merge with Glen Alden Corporation, a Delaware corporation. At the time ofthis October 5, 1972 merger, neither Rapid nor Glen Alden had any involvement whatsoever in the mining, manufacturing, sale or distribution of asbestos or asbestos-containing products, and neither has had any such involvement since October 5, 1972. On December 28, 1966, a plan and agreement of merger was executed by officers of The Philip Carey Manufacturing Company ("Old Carey") and Glen Alden Corporation. On May 31, 1967, Old Carey ceased doing business, and all assets, properties, goodwill, business and liabilities were assigned to New Carey (The Philip Carey G:\RAAOHIO\GRECO.ROG -5- Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation formerly known as XPRU Corporation). New Carey was a wholly-owned independent subsidiary of Glen Alden Corporation which was never merged into Glen Alden Corporation or Rapid in any respect. On January 23,1968, New Carey changed its name to Philip Carey Corporation. A certificate of amendment to its articles of incorporation, evidencing this name change, was filed with the Secretary of State for the State of Ohio on February 16,1968. On April 9, 1970, New Carey (Philip Carey Corporation) was merged into Briggs Manufacturing Company, a Michigan corporation, which simultaneously changed its name to Panacon Corporation. On April 17, 1972, Glen Alden Corporation, a majority stockholder in Panacon Corporation (owning 6,528,739 shares of common stock ofPanacon Corporation out of a total of 7,356,000 shares of class A Common Stock ofPanacon) entered into an agreement whereby the stock ofPanacon owned by Glen Alden was sold to The Celotex Corporation. By June 30,1972, Panacon Corporation and its Philip Carey business was fully merged into The Celotex Corporation, and Glen Alden Corporation had no further involvement with Philip Carey or Panacon as shareholder or otherwise after these transactions in April through June, 1972. It was on October 5, 1972, several months after Celotex acquired Panacon and the Philip Carey business and several months after Glen Alden had ceased in its role as a shareholder ofPanacon, that Rapid-American Corporation, an Ohio corporation, entered into an agreement of merger with Glen Alden Corporation. Rapid did not acquire any ofPhilip Carey or Panacon's property, operations, records, documents, patents, trademarks, goodwill, plants, operations, assets or any other aspect whatsoever of the Philip Carey business. No officer of Old Carey ever became an officer ofRapid. No employee of Old Carey ever became an employee ofRapid. G:\RA5VOHIO\GRECO.ROG -6- 4. Please state whether or not the Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the Illinois, selling, manufacturing, marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products.) If so, please state the following: ' a. the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, its state ofincorporation and principal place ofbusiness, its date of incorporation, and the name ofDefendant at the time of acquisition; b. the manner by which each such corporation, entity, or interest therein, was acquired (e.g. merger, consolidation, change of name, stock sale, transfer or purchase of assets or product line); c. the date of each such acquisition; d. the state in which each such acquisition was effected; e. the state law governing each such acquisition if specified by contract; _ f. whether Defendant became legally responsible for the past torts of such corporation or entity; g. ANSWER: whether the acquisition concerned asbestos-containing products. See answer to Interrogatory No. 3. 4.1 For each corporation, other than the answering defendant ("the entity"), that has at any time in the past been involved in the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce for which officers ofthe answering defendant's corporation have also served as G:\RAS\OHKAGRECO.ROG -7- officers, directors or served in any managerial position while employed by the answering defendant, state: a. the name of the entity involved in the placing of asbestos products into the stream of commerce; b. the manner in which the entity was involved in the placing of asbestos containing products into the stream of commerce (i.e.,mining, milling, manufacturing^ distributing, installing, rebranding, etc.); ' c. the specific products placed into the stream of commerce by the entity year by year and by brand or trade name; d. the name, positions and a brief description ofthe responsibilities ofthe person or persons serving the answering defendant and the entity simultaneously including the positions held with the entity and with the answering defendant. ANSWER: Not applicable. 5. Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following: (a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary); (b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following: ' 1. The trade or brand name. 2. Its identification number (model, serial number, etc.). 3. The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -8- 4. Its physical description including color, general composition, and form. 5. A detailed description ofits intended use and purpose. 6. A detailed description ofthe type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type ofpackage used, a physical description ofthe package, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. 7. The percent of asbestos which it contained. . 8. The percent of asbestos by asbestos type (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite). (c) the time period during which each ofthese products were on the market; (d) The material components/ingredients of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component/ingredient (this interrogatory is not limited to the asbestos component ofthe product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume ofnon-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product; (e) How each ofthese asbestos-containing product can be distinguished from those of competitors; (f) (g) ANSWER: A description of the physical appearance of such product; A detailed description of the intended uses. Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never ever engaged in the mining, manu facturing, selling, marketing, or distribution of asbestos-containing products. G:\RAS\OHiaCRECO.ROG -9- 6. Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state the following: (a) The date of each patent; (b) The date same was issued; (c) The number of each patent application that is pending. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 7. Have any ofthe products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition sinc$ first being marketed? If so, please state the following: (a) The trade name of each such product; (b) The date each such product was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 8. Have any ofthe asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following: (a) The name and address of each such company. G:\RASOHIO\GRECO.ROG - 10- (b) The names and address ofDefendant's distributors in Ohio and Illinois since 1940. (c) The date of each sale. (d) The name ofthe person at each location with whom you primarily dealt. (e) A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980. (f) The amount of each asbestos product sold to each location during this period. (g) Please identify all documents relating to this distributor for the particular location. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 8.01 Has this defendant ever purchased asbestos containing products from any other defendant? ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never ever purchased asbestos containing products from any other defendant. 8.02 Ifthe answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG - 11 - (a) name each defendant from whom this defendant purchased any asbestos containing product; (b) list each product purchased from each co-defendant; (c) list the dates of each purchase of asbestos-containing products from each co-defendant. ANSWER: . See answer to Interrogatory 8.01. 8.03 Has this defendant ever sold asbestos containing products to any other defendant? AKS-WER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. - Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 8.04 Ifthe answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (a) name each defendant to whom this defendant sold any asbestos containing product; (b) list each product sold to each co-defendant; G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROC -12- (c) list the dates of each sale of asbestos-containing products to each co-defendant. MSSZER: See answer to Interrogatory 8.03. 8.05 Has Defendant engaged in the manufacture and/or sale and/or distribution and/or marketing and/or supply and/or purchase and/or use of non-asbestos-containing products for use in connection with temperatures above 125 degrees Fahrenheit since 1930. If so, please state: (a) the date such activity began; (b) the years during which such activity took place; \ (c) the date when such activity was terminated; (d) if such activity was terminated, the reason(s) why; (e) the geographical area into which you claim the product(s) were sold, purchased, or used; (f) identify the organizational unit of defendant so engaged; (g) the site(s) at which each such product was manufactured; (h) the material components of each such product, giving specific or approximate percentage both by weight and by volume of each material component of each such product; (i) the temperature ranges for which each product(s) was intended to be used; (j) the product's generic name; (k) the product's trade or brand name; (l) the container in which the product was shipped (i.e., paper bags, cardboard boxes) including the size and amount ofthe container; G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -13- (m) a description of any logos, writing impressions or identifying markings which appeared on the product, as well as a description of the package used, the dates that type ofpackage was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared on the package; (n) whether the words "non-asbestos" or "asbestos free" were used on the package; (o) a detailed description ofthe intended method ofpreparation and application ofthe product; (p) a description ofthe physical appearance ofthe product, including size, shape, color and texture. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad. Unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed,- processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 8.06 Did Defendant ever market or distribute any asbestos-containing product manufactured in whole or in part by someone else? If so, please state the following for each such product: (a) the name and address ofthe manufacturer; (b) the product's trade and brand name; G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -14- (c) the organizational unit ofDefendant who did so; (d) date(s) beginning, ending and during which the marketing or distributing took place; (e) whether the product was distributed through the same channels as those used for products manufactured by Defendant, and if not, please explain ' the exact channels of distribution; (f) ANSWER: identify all documents relating the marketing or distribution. ' Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 8.1 Does Defendant have reason to believe that any ofthe asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 were used at any ofthe sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto. Ifyour answer is "yes", please state: (a) The basis ofyour answer. (b) Please state which ofDefendant's asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 were used at each job site listed on Exhibit A. G.^RAS\OHJO\GRECO.ROG - 15- ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 8.2 For each company or business that Defendant knows may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold, those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A. (a) The name and address ofeach such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name ofthe person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt. ' % (d) Names and quantities ofthe asbestos-containing products that you marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974 (e) Please identify all documents relating to the sales to each such company. - ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 8.3 Ifyou do not know any business that may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to any of the job sites listed on Exhibit A, please state the names and last known addresses ofthose companies who Defendant knows marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1950 to 1974. For each ofthose companies, please state the following: (a) Name and address of each such company; G:\RAS'OH!CM3RCO.ROG -16- (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name ofthe person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) The names ofthe asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed, distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. ANSWER: . See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to any ofthe sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto? If so, please state the following as to each job site'listed on Exhibit A: (a) The names and last known addresses ofthose people with such knowledge. (b) The location of such records. - ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\OmO\GRECOJlOG - 17- 9. Did Defendant or any ofDefendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, from 1945 to 1975? If your response is yes, as to each site listed on Exhibit A, please state the following: (a) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether . they are still employed by Defendant; (b) The period oftime they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; (d) Whether that person is still alive; and (e) ANSWER: Any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto. % See answers to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. 9.1 Identify all managers and sales personnel responsible for your sales or installation of any asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1930 to the present and state their position, last known address and the local or regional office through which they were employed. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG - 18- Notwithstanding such objection, Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 10. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing products? If so, please state: (a) The name of each subdivision; (b) The full address ofthe home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and (c) Whether said division or subsidiary conducted such business at any ofthe sites listed on Exhibit A, from 1940 to 1975? If so, please state the following as to each job site listed on Exhibit A: (1) The dates of such contracts; (2) The specific asbestos-containing products that were used ore removed in each contract. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. G:\RASV3H10\GRECO.ROG -19- Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 11. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-containing refractory? If so, please give the nme of each subdivision, the full address ofthe home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed,processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 12. Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled and the dates said plants have been in operation. ANSWER- See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -20- 13. Has Defendant, at any time, entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as a buyer or a seller, concerning any asbestos-containing products and/or materials? If so, please state: (a) The name ofthe company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement; (b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) The periods oftime covered by each such agreement; (d) The volume (in dollars amounts) of each such transaction; (e) The purchaser of such products; (f) Does Defendant currently have in its possession any of the writings or contracts concerning such rebranding agreement? ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -21 - 13.1 Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereofwhich engaged in construction, erection or tear out offurnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, ovens, kilns, etc? If so, please state: (a) the same of said business; (b) the date of commencing business and cessation ofbusiness, if applicable; (c) type of construction or tear out performed; (d) state whether said business installed or supplied asbestos-containing products on the furnaces, pipes, boilers, turbines, lehrs, etc., i.e., gaskets, pipecovering, block, cement, rope, cloth, clothes, etc., containing asbestos, asbestos pipe, board, etc.; (e) state the trade and/or manufacturer of any asbestos containing product which you installed or supplied to any site on Exhibit A. (f) provide the dates for the applicable construction, installation or tear-out project. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\OKKyj3RECQ.ROG -22- 13.2 All you have within your custody, possession, or control any packages that presently or formerly packaged asbestos-containing products or were produced for the purpose of packaging asbestos-containing products contemporaneous with your manufacture sale or distribution of such asbestos-containing products? If so, provide the following: (a) a description of each such package; . (b) the present location and custodian of each such package; , (c) ANSWER: the date or approximate date on which each such package was produced. Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, Unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed,- processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. INFORMATION ABOUT DESTGN/TF.STlNr: 14. What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each such product listed above in answer to Interrogatoiy No. 5? G:\RASU3HIO\GRECO.ROG -23- ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 15. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please describe how each product was to be cut, shaped, scribed, mixed and applied on the job. (In answering this question, give particular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed or cut on the job, blown into confined areas, mixed with water in a cement or paste.) ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 16. Based upon the material contents of the asbestos-containing products, the method ofmanufacturing, and the method of application, please state which products listed in - Interrogatory No. 5 could be applied by a worker without creating dust. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 17. Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please: (a) List each such written material or document; G:\RASU3raOU3KECO.ROG -24- (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 18. Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 for sale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use o or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name ofthe products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) ANSWER: The results of such tests. ' See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 18.1 Prior to releasing any products for sale and usage (whether asbestos-containing or not), were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use o or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name ofthe products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; G:\RASOHIO\GRECO.RQG -25- (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 19. Does Defendant have or control any documents, including but not limited to, - written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing ofthe products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove? (a) Identify each such written material or document; (b) (c) ANSWER- Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; State where each such document is located. See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. G:\RAS\0HI0\GRCO.ROG -26- 20. Were any design changes or modifications made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 18 hereinabove? If so, please state: (a) The trade name ofthe product changed or modified; (b) The nature ofthe change made and the date of such changes or modifications; (c) The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. . ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 18. 21. After releasing for sate, distribution or marketing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5, did Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said materials and/or products? (a) The names ofthe products tested and the dates of said tests; (b) The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency conducting said tests; (c) The results of said tests; (d) Whether, as a result of any tests conducted, any products were removed from the market; (e) ANSWER: The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said tests. See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -27- 22. Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around any ofthe asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or relabelled for distribution by you or your predecessor? If so, please state: (a) The dates and nature of such studies; (b) The names and addresses of persons conducting such studies; (c) The purpose of such studies; . (d) Identify and list those persons to whom such reports were given and the date of such dissemination; (e) State any publication or other written dissemination of the results of such studies; ' (f) State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; and . ANSWER: (g) Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. ' Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection, Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -28- INFORMATION ABOUT SAFETY 23. Before placing in the market the asbestos-containing products that Defendant, mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products would be hazardous to people? If so, please state: (a) The date of said studies; (b) What studies were done; and (c) The titles of each study. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 24. Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were applied, removed or utilized) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to insulators, applicators. GARAROHICAGRECO.ROG -29- fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestos-containing products, and/or other workers in the vicinity thereof? If so, please identify: (a) The date, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular asbestos-containing products to which each test applied; (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site; and (d) ANSWER: . The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such dissemination. ' Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad. Unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed,processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 25. Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state: (a) When Defendant first became aware of the hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers; G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -30- (b) The manner in which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware of said hazards and from what source this information was obtained; (c) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company, or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (d) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. (e) The name, address and job classification of the custodian of such information. AMSWEE: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 26. Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of asbestosis and cancers including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer and mesothelioma. As to each disease or condition, please state the source ofthat G:\RAS\OmO\GRECO.ROG -31 - information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity-and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 27. Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. ANSWER: ' Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. G:\RASvOHIOMjRECO.ROG -32- Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 28. As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant, please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity, and that person's current address and job title. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 29. Please state ifany medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -33- ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. v 30. Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, research department, industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975. . ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\0HIO\GRCO.ROG -34- 30.1 Please state whether Defendant, its medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant or physicians were ever involved in testing or received literature or correspondence from the Mellon Institute. ANSWER: ' Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 30.2 Has any engineer, industrial hygienist or physician in your employ been a member in any professional group, trade group or any of the following groups: Asbestos Textile Institute National Insulation Manufacturers Association Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association Quebec Asbestos Mining Association Asbestos Information Association Industrial Health Foundation Industrial Hygiene Foundation G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -35- Iron and Steel Institute National Safety Counsel Refractories Institute Air Hygiene Foundation ofAmerica, Inc. Sprayed Mineral Fiber Association. . Ifthe answer is yes, state the following: (a) The name of the group or groups in which the individual(s) were members; (b) The name and position individuals) within the Defendant, as defined, who were members; (c) The years the individual(s) were members of the groups; % (d) Whether the Defendant paid the individual(s) dues or membership fees or reimbursed the individual(s) for dues or membership fees in the group. ANSWER: - Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\OHIOIGRECO.ROG -36- 31. State in detail what test, if any. Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos- containing products. ANSWER: . Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner - whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 31, please give the name ofthe person conducting the test, the date of the test, and attach true copies of any documents, including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 31. 33. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentration of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American G:\RASUDHIOVQRECO.ROG -37- Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name ofthe employee/official of the company receiving such advice. ANSWER: _ Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 33.1 State whether this defendant at any time caused to be conducted on any job site, any air sampling, dust counts, tests or other activities to determine air quality or worker safety. If your answer is in the affirmative, please indicate: (a) the date of any such air samples, tests, or activities; (b) by whom such activities were performed; . (c) where such activities were performed; (d) the results of any such activities. G:WAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -38- ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. * 34. Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state: . (a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library; (c) The name(s) ofthe librarian^) since 1930; (d) List all journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering; (e) List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related diseases and the date acquired. ANSWER- Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -39- Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 35. Did Defendant in the 1920's or 1930's commission, or participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect ofinhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 36. When was Defendant first aware of reports of studies ofthe Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of GARAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -40- Asbestos Workers" by AJ. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, Vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4,1935 ("Lanza Report")? ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 36.1 Did you ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to study the hazards of any dust producing product manufactured by you (whether asbestos containing or not)? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such study. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. G:\RAS\OHiaK3RECO.ROG -41 - Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any mariner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 36.2 Did you ever contract with Saranac Laboratories to analyze dust or products? If so, identify by date and author all documents concerning or any way related to such analysis. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection, Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. - Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any maimer whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 37. Please state whether the Defendant at any time has been a member of any "trade organization" or "trade association" composed by other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos-containing products and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such association or organization, the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -42- ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. \ 38. With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 37, please state whether the minutes ofthe group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 37. 39. Please identify by name the technical and trade association periodicals to which the Defendant subscribed, and state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertaining to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following: (a) The title of each such article; G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -43 - (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation ofthe reason for withholding any such article for printing; . (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. _ Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 40. Please state whether, prior to 1975, the Defendant sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, convention or legislative hearing where the subject of occupational health and exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address of any speakers or participants. G:\RAS\OHlOVGRECO.ROC -44- ANS$R: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. i WARNINGS/SALES PROMOTION 41. As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any printed materials, including but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects ofthe products on a person. If so, please state as to each product: (a) The name of each relevant product; (b) The wording of each such warning; (c) A description of each such printed material; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products; (e) The date each such warning was issued; G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -45- (f) Whether any warning accompanied any ofyour asbestos-containing products' sides literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy ofthe warning and date said warning was issued; (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession ofthe above-described documents; (i) The name or names and addresses ofthe company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared. ANSWER: ' See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 42. Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its agents for purposes of marketing or advertising the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The date same was prepared; (d) ANSWER: The media used to disseminate the sales material. See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 43. Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any ofDefendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 should be used or maintained by the G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -46- ultimate user or those working in facilities or at job sites where the product was used, installed or removed, including, but not limited to, those sites listed on the job site list attached as Exhibit A. If so, please state the following: (a) The name, address and job classification of each person who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The dates and manner in which said material was distributed to purchasers ofthe products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. \ 44. Was any written material of any kind prepared by Defendant and distributed to those individuals listed in response to Interrogatory No. 9? If so, please state the following: (a) Identify the written material by content and date; (b) To whom was it delivered. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 9. 45. Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or applying same? If so, please state the following: (a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos; G:\RAS\OHIOSGRECO.ROG -47- (b) The chemical of the substitute; ' (c) Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used; (d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971; (e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. . Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 46. Did Defendant give any warnings to any individuals at the sites listed on Exhibit A, including any individuals who owned, operated, or managed the facilities at the sites listed on Exhibit A, regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5. Ifyes, please state: (a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication; (b) Name ofperson at the sites listed on Exhibit 1, attached hereto most knowledgeable about this communication. G:\RAS\OHIOUjRECO.ROG -48- (c) Dates of each communication. (d) Contents of each communication. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 47. Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state the following: (a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved; . v (b) The disease alleged in each such claim; (c) A brief summary ofthe disposition of each such claim; and (d) ANSWER: , The name, address and job classification ofthe person or persons having custody ofthe records pertaining to each such claim. Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any maimer whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. G:\RAS\jQHIO\GRHCO.ROG -49- 47.1 Please identify all documents concerning or in any way related to any decisions made by you to cease manufacturing asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not evef been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 47.2 Has any person or company from which you purchased asbestos containing products ever issued a recall oftheir products or taken any action to take those products offthe market after said products were in your possession? If so, provide: (a) the date of said recall; (b) the name of the company which issued the recall; (c) a copy ofthe recall. . ' .ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. a\RAS\OMO\GRECO.ROG -50- Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. ""~- 47.3 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the manufacture or production of asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: ; Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 47.4 State what action, if any, you have ever taken since 1930 to minimize or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or pneumoconiosis to those at any time engaged in the use, as distinguished from the manufacture, or exposed to the use of asbestos-containing or industrial G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -51 - insulation products or who were otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing or industrial insulation products. (a) describe such action; (b) state when such action was taken; (c) state what written material exists related to such action; (d) state the names, job titles and last known address ofthe individuals who undertook such actions. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is v unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 48. Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, sold, installed, and/or distributed by Defendant? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date of notice of each claim; GARAS\OHKAGRECO.ROG -52- (c) A description ofthe claim; (d) The type ofinjuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims; (f) The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. ' ANSWER: . Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. \ Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 48.1 Describe the method by which you have maintained records concerning the manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tear-out of each of asbestos-containing products. For each description provide the following: (a) each present and former company or corporate department, division or subdivision responsible for maintaining such records; (b) the manner in which the records are kept (e.g., boxes, computer tape, microfilm, etc.); GJiRASOHICMjRECO.ROG -53 - (c) the inclusive dates of any such manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery, and/or installation or tearout which such record keeping system covers; (d) the present location at which all such records are maintained; (e) the identity of each person employed by you at any time from 193 0 to the present who is or was responsible for the collection and maintenance of such records. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. - Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. 48.2 State whether any records concerning the manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, advertising, delivery, use or installation or tear-out of asbestos-containing products have been destroyed or discarded and if so, indicate: (a) the date and location of such destruction or discard; (b) the custodian and location of such records prior to their destruction or discard and the identity of each employee, representative, official or agent who ordered, authorized or supervised such destruction or discard. G:\RAfMHIO\GRECO.ROG -54- ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, . processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. v 48.3 For all documents, other than invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to the all the preceding interrogatories: . (a) Is there any kind of index for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic for nat (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) ANSWER: What manner of electronic format is used? . Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. G:\RAS\OHTO\CRECO.ROG -55- Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. . 48.4 For all invoices, work orders and/or purchase orders, which relate to matters relevant to the all the preceding interrogatories: (a) Is there any kind ofindex for the documents? (b) How many pages is the index of documents? (c) How many documents are referred to in the index? (d) Is the index maintained in electronic format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) ANSWER: What manner of electronic format is used? Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid has never produced, manufactured, designed, processed, mined, milled, relabeled, advertised, distributed, marketed, handled, sold or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce any asbestos-containing product. G:\RAS\OHIOVGRECO.ROG -56- Moreover, Rapid has not ever been involved in the asbestos business in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this interrogatory is not applicable. PI AINTTFF/DECEDENT 49. Has Defendant obtained statement from any witnesses including the Plaintiffs? If so, please: (a) list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, andjob title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of % Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information protected by the attomey/client or work product privileges. Notwithstanding said objections, and without waiving any rights thereto, Rapid states that discovery is ongoing and it has not obtained a statement from any witnesses, including plaintiffs at this time. Such will be disclosed in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 50. Do you contend that the Plaintiff/Decedent improperly used those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please set out in detail in what respect the product was improperly used. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -57- ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 51. As to the sites listed on Exhibit A, and as to each PlaintifiTDecedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed or caused PlaintifiTDecedent's injuries. Ifyour answer is yes, please state the following: (a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity ofthe sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts. ANSWER: ; v ' Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks the opinion of an expert which this defendant is not qualified to give. RESPIRATORS 52. Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation ofthe asbestos dust and fibers contained in products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, state: (a) When the respirator was sold; (b) A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRJECO.ROG -58- (c) The basis ofyour claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation ofsuch dust and fibers; (d) Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness of such respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number; (e) List all documents which mention, allude or refer to tests performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 5. 53. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial ofthis case? If so, please state the following: ' (a) Their identity, last known address; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; - (c) The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore; (d) The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above; (e) Whether any person identified in sub-paragraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify such document or report; (f) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above; and (g) Describe in detail the education and work histoiy of, and identify any books, treaties, article, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu, of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answer. G;\RAS\OMCM3RCO.ROG -59- ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information protected by the attomey/client or work product privileges. Notwithstanding said objections, and without waiving any rights thereto, Rapid states that discovery is ongoing and it has not yet determined what expert witnesses it may call at trial. Such will be disclosed in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 54. Please state the name'and last know address of each expert witness who is not retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee ofDefendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time oftrial. - AMSSTEB.: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information protected by the attomey/client or work product privileges. Notwithstanding said objections, and without waiving any rights thereto. Rapid states that discovery is ongoing and it has not yet determined what expert witnesses it may call at trial. Such will be disclosed in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. G:\RASVOHIO\GRECO.ROG -60- 55. Does Defendant admit that service of process was properly had on it in these cases? If not, please state why. wswm,: Yes. 55.1 For each and every affirmative defense asserted in the answering defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Cross-Claims or Counter-Claims of any party against this answering defendant state: (a) the facts upon which the answering defendant relies for each and every affirmative defense; (b) each and every document which will be offered to prove each and every affirmative defense; and (c) each and every witness who will testify in support of each and every ' affirmative defense. (d) . ANSWER: the substance and subject matter ofthe anticipated testimony of each witness identified in the preceding response. Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information protected by the attorney client or work product privileges. Notwithstanding said objections, and without waiving any rights thereto. Rapid states that, because discovery is ongoing, it is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time. G:\RAS\OHIO\GRECO.ROG -61 - 56. Does Defendant have policies of insurance that might cover the claims that have been made by the Plaintiffs herein? (a) If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is ' unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding such objection. Rapid states that the information sought by this interrogatory may be derived from documents Rapid has previously furnished to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with Bernice Dees Giles, et al. v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, et al.; In the 138th Judicial District Court, Cameron County, Texas; Cause No. 95-03-01258-B. 56.1 Have you ever been involved in any litigation concerning potential insurance coverage for asbestos products liability matters? If so, please state: (a) the case caption, court and date of filing of each case in which you have been involved; (b) whether you were plaintiff or defendant; (c) a brief statement ofthe issues; (d) identify by date, author and recipient(s), (including recipients of carbon copies) all documents listed as exhibits by either party in this litigation; (e) identify by deponent and date all individuals who were deposed in these cases; GARASVOKOW3RECO.ROG -62- (f) identify by date, author and recipient(s) all documents that have been placed on a protective order in such litigation; (g) identify all expert witnesses retained for use at trial in any ofthe above litigation by name, address and telephone number. ANSWER:- Rapid objects to this Interrogatory as being beyond the scope of the Ohio RuleS~of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rapid further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not reasonably limited by either time or subject matter to information that is relevant to the matters at issue in this case. Moreover, Rapid objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it wbuld require the disclosure of information or identification of documents protected by any privilege, including but not limited to the attorney client privilege, the joint-defense privilege, and the work product doctrine. Rapid and its counsel hereby assert such privileges with respect to such documents. Rapid also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information which is in the public domain and which is readily accessible to plaintiffs. Finally, Rapid objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information which is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and in the spirit of cooperation, Rapid states that it has been or is currently involved in litigation with insurers on its asbestos risk as follows: Continental Casualty Co. and Transportation Insurance Co. y, Rapid-American Corp. andJSlational Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh. Pa.. Index No. 90/24112, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York; Rapid-American Corp. v. Allstate G.\RAS\OHIO\GRCO.ROG -63- Insurance Co. as successor to Northhraok Excess and Surplus Insurance Co.. Northbrook Indemnity Co.. and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's. London and London Market Companies. Index No. 94/131532, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. V. 57. Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge ofrelevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit. ANSWER: Objection. Rapid objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. It is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and lacks the requisite specificity and is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure ofinformation protected by the attorney client or work product privileges. Notwithstanding said objections, and without waiving any rights thereto, Rapid states other than the plaintiffs, it is unable at this time to state who has knowledge of facts relevant to this case. Furthermore, Rapid states that discovery is ongoing and it has not yet determined what witnesses it may call at trial. Such will be disclosed in accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 58. State the last date that this Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. ANSWER: G:\RAS\OHIO\GRJECO.ROG -64- VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK I, PAUL WEINER, am Vice-President ofRAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION, and am duly authorized to execute, under oath and on behalf ofRAPED-AMERICAN CORPORATION, the attached Rapid-American Corporation's Objections And Responses To Plaintiffs Interrogatories. The information set forth in these Responses was collected by corporate personnel and other persons with knowledge of the facts; such information is not necessarily within my personal knowledge. However, on behalfofthe corporation I solemnly affirm, under the penalties ofperjury, that the foregoing Responses are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the 3&fk day of by the said PAUL WEINER, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. 1997 Typed/ printed<>r stamped name of Notary Public, in and for the State of Ak/S Mt/UC______ (L* 6 \My commission expires: V 4^ t f VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X PAUL WEINER, am Vice-President ofRAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION, and am duly authorized to execute, under oath and on behalfofRAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION, the attached Rapid-American Corporation's Objections And Responses To Plaintiffs Interrogatories. The information set forth in these Responses was collected by corporate personnel and other persons with knowledge of the facts; such information is not necessarily within my personal knowledge. However, on behalfofthe corporation I solemnly affirm, under the penalties ofpeijuiy, that the foregoing Responses are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this the h'**' day of_^^^1997. by the said PAUL WEINER, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. Typed, printed or stamped name of Notary Public, in and for the State of_ My commission expires: ANGELA FC CHAN Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CH5057894 Qualified in Kings County H Commission Expires April 1,19L--