Document zb5Dmk5XM3G6q6ewbgXO0bNbB

FILE NAME Paccar PAC DATE 2012 Aug 22 DOC PAC006 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Dobson v Paccar Answer to Plaintiffs Interrogatories Ex C EXHIBIT C IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ST LOV STATE OF MISSOURI TWENTY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT BY BERT DOBSON and GLORIA DOBSON Petitioner V. ) Cause No CC00841 ) ) ) ) A.W. CHESTERTON INC et al ) \ Defendant ) ECEIVE ECEIVE ECEIVE 2012 , PACCAR INC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS MANUFACTURER INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT Defendant PACCAR Inc hereinafter PACCAR by and through its attorneys Segal McCambridge Signer & Mahoney Ltd. and for its Answers to Plaintiffs Manufacturer Interrogatories Directed to Defendant states as follows PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses are provided only for those products to which Plaintiff has alleged exposure These responses are based on an ongoing review of PACCAR's documents and information obtained from ongoing discussions with various PACCAR personnel Much of the information requested dates back many years and is difficult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve Therefore PACCAR reserves the right to amend these responses if more information becomes available PACCAR prepared these responses with the assistance of counsel No single employee officer or agent of PACCAR has hand knowledge regarding each and every response The person signing these responses does so to satisfy whatever requirements may exist under the applicable rules regarding verification That person is informed and believes that the information known as of the date of his signature supports the responses below DEFINITIONS Plaintiff's Definitions are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity PACCAR objects to those Definitions as overly broad vague and confusing as drafted PACCAR further objects to Plaintiff's Definitions in that they include meanings and characterizations inconsistent with PACCAR's interpretation of the defined terms and phrases GENERAL OBJECTIONS PACCAR objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek corporate knowledge as it is impossible for PACCAR to set forth the collective knowledge of all of its past or present employees PACCAR reserves the right to revise correct supplement and amend its responses to provide information discovered subsequent to the answers contained herein PACCAR asserts the following objections and incorporates each by reference into each and every response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories set forth herein a PACCAR asserts the right tto o object on the grounds of competency privilege relevancy materiality or any other proper ground to the use of any said responses for any purpose in whole or in part in any subsequent step or proceeding in this litigation b PACCAR asserts the right to object on any other ground to other Interrogatories or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Interrogatories answered herein c PACCAR asserts the right to revise correct supplement or clarify any of the responses or objections set forth herein at any time and PACCAR reserves the right to object to the use of these responses at trial or any other proceeding as deemed necessary and appropriate by PACCAR d PACCAR objects to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they involve matters outside of the geographical area at issue in this litigation and limits its responses to said area e Furthermore these Interrogatories ask PACCAR to disclose information of which may no longer exist or may not be readily available is unrelated to the products which Plaintiff alleges exposure to in this litigation and information which is also unrelated to the locations at which any PACCAR product was allegedly used the conditions under which the products were allegedly used the time period during which any PACCAR product was allegedly in use at any alleged work sites or the time periods during which exposure to a PACCAR product allegedly occurred Thus these Interrogatories seek information which is neither material nor relevant to the issues in this litigation are overly broad in time scope and location and are otherwise not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence f These Interrogatories are oppressive and burdensome and would require PACCAR to undertake a massive and extraordinary document search the results of which would have little to no demonstrable bearing on this litigation in light of the alleged exposure Moreover many of these Interrogatories are not susceptible to a response because they request information which dates back many years and is now virtually impossible for PACCAR to reconstruct or retrieve in its entirety g PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories because they were propounded to harass and coerce a settlement despite the lack or complete absence of verifiable product identification and the lack of evidence of injury as a result of alleged exposure to or use of any product which PACCAR may or may not have manufactured h PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories because they are propounded for an additional improper purpose namely as a fishing expedition for the purposes of obtaining information that may be taken out of context by Plaintiff's counsel to create allegations against PACCAR where none may legitimately exist ) PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories as overly broad in that they seek information from entities other than itself or its predecessors PACCAR over the course of its long history has owned several businesses which are not involved in the instant litigation Therefore all references in these Interrogatories to YOU YOUR COMPANY and THIS DEFENDANT are assumed to refer only to PACCAR's unincorporated truck divisions Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company ( PACCAR objects to each and every Interrogatory that seeks production of any information constituting a trade secret confidential financial data or other confidential research development or commercial information k PACCAR objects on the basis that these Interrogatories are argumentative because they assume that a health hazard is created by the PACCAR products that may have incorporated containing component parts which PACCAR denies 1 PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories on the basis that they are vague and ambiguous The Interrogatories relating to certain diseases fail to provide facts relating to the amount of exposure duration of exposure fiber type in exposure and latency period m PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories in that they tend to group together all of the defendants in this litigation and are therefore overly broad unduly burdensome harassing and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and material evidence n PACCAR objects to each and every Interrogatory that calls for either pure speculation or legal conclusions on the part of PACCAR for its answers o PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for a medical conclusion beyond the scope of PACCAR's knowledge and capability p PACCAR objects to each and every Interrogatory that purports to impose any obligations on it that are not set forth in the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure q PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine \ r PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek disclosure of information generated by persons other than PACCAR that has come into the possession of PACCAR's counsel during the course of discovery and trial preparation in asbestos litigation s PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information for any period subsequent to Bert Dobson's alleged exposure t PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is not under PACCAR's custody or control or which is within the public domain or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff as it is to PACCAR Without waiving any of the foregoing objections PACCAR states as follows PACCAR'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO 1 Describe the manner in which the information used to answer these interrogatories was collected by identifying any and all such sources of information relied upon including records or documents reviewed records or documents determined to have been destroyed document retention policies persons providing information and overseeing the process and the person verifying the answers ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted PACCAR further objects to the extent that this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney privilege the attorney work product doctrine and the consulting expert privilege Subject to and without waiving objection Rod Curbo Product Safety and Compliance Manager for Peterbilt Motors Company has verified these answers and has supplied responsive information Mr. Curbo's knowledge is based on his experience with the company and his conversations over the years with various Peterbilt and Kenworth personnel PACCAR has made a reasonable inquiry of the available sources of information in its responses to these interrogatories INTERROGATORY NO 2 Does Defendant claim that it has been sued under an incorrect name or otherwise been misnamed or misidentified in this case If so explain the basis for your affirmative ~ answer including but not limited to specifically identifying any and all entities which you contend are the proper parties ANSWER Defendant's correct corporate name is PACCAR Inc no punctuation INTERROGATORY NO 3 Identify by full and complete trade name any and all containing products as defined above which this Defendant and any predecessor entity has at any time manufactured sold distributed specified applied and installed in whole or part ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to & the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated lead to the discovery of admissible evidence \ Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture containing products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks These vehicles included among other components axles transmissions and engines that were manufactured by various component suppliers PACCAR is informed and believes that some of these pre- assembled component parts may have at various points in time incorporated brakes clutches and gaskets that contained some form of encapsulated chrysotile These products were at all times manufactured by and obtained from various component part suppliers that are unrelated to PACCAR PACCAR did not specify the use of asbestos in these component parts Moreover PACCAR did not know the formulation or chemical composition of these component parts as such information was the proprietary trade secret of the products manufacturers If those products contained asbestos at some point in time it was because the component manufacturers independently determined that asbestos was a necessary part of the formulation to achieve mandated performance specifications INTERROGATORY NO 4 With respect to each containing product in response to Interrogatory No. 3 a State the years during which Defendant and any predecessor entity designed manufactured processed specified sold distributed applied installed patented or labeled each such product b Identify each and every source from which Defendant and any predecessor entity obtained raw asbestos and containing material or components used by the same to manufacture assemble and process any product and c Provide a full and complete description of the packaging in which each such product was sold including but not limited to type of package size color and writings thereon ANSWER Please see PACCAR's Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 INTERROGATORY NO 5 ~- Has Defendant and any predecessor entity ever purchased and resold raw asbestos If so specifically describe each such transaction ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted It also inappropriately calls for a legal conclusion regarding the succession of corporate liabilities Subject to and without waiving objection PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not purchase or sell raw asbestos INTERROGATORY NO 6 With respect to each product listed in response to Interrogatories No. 3 a Identify each and every person who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing or assembly specifications for each such product b State the type and percentage of asbestos contained in the product including changes over time and y C. Identify the source of asbestos and containing components in each such product by year and by specific product i.e. if Defendant made automobiles with containing components identify the source of each and every such component by make model and year ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to evidence Further answering subject to objection please see PACCAR's Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 Further answering without waiving objection PACCAR's Kenworth and Peterbilt truck divisions assembled thousands of trucks over the years and those vehicles were designed through an evolutionary process that has spanned many decades There would be many individuals who had a role in the design and manufacture of these trucks throughout the years and PACCAR does not organize personnel files in terms of who may have worked on the design of any given truck INTERROGATORY NO 7 Identify any and all facilities at which Defendant and any predecessor entity at anytime manufactured or processed containing products raw asbestos and any other product listed in response to Interrogatories No. 3 PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Further answering without waiving objection Kenworth and Peterbilt heavy duty trucks were assembled in various locations With respect to the United States Kenworth hada plant in Seattle Washington from 1945 the time PACCAR purchased Kenworth until that facility ~~ ~ closed in 2001. In 1964 Kenworth opened a plant in Kansas City Missouri this plant closed in 1986. Today Kenworth has facilities in Chillicothe Ohio opened in 1974 and Renton Washington opened in 1993 Peterbilt had a plant in Newark CA from 1960 until that facility closed in 1986. Peterbilt also had a plant in Madison TN from 1969 until that facility closed in 2008. Peterbilt currently has a facility in Denton TX opened in 1980 INTERROGATORY NO 8 With respect to each product identified in response to Interrogatories No. 3 a Identify any and all purchasers of said product which acted at any time as distributors of the same and state whether or not any such distributors were at any time an exclusive distributor in terms of product material or territory 10 b Identify the largest purchaser of said product for each year that the product was manufactured sold distributed and or otherwise dispersed by Defendant and any predecessor entity c Identify the ten 10 largest purchasers of said product for the entire time that the product was manufactured sold distributed and or otherwise dispersed by Defendant and any predecessor entity and d Identify any all purchasers for which Defendant and any predecessor entity was the exclusive provider of the product type in question for any period of time A ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that its Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions have manufactured thousands of trucks during the specified period that those trucks were custom at the direction request or specification of the user that information regarding those trucks is maintained by Vehicle Identification Number and that the location and identification of information responsive to this interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive INTERROGATORY NO 9 Identify any and all tests studies surveys and research of any type concerning asbestos the health hazards of asbestos the amount of asbestos released by any product or operation including but not limited to dust counts and industrial hygiene surveys which Defendant and any predecessor entity and any entity acting on behalf thereof 11 including but not limited to an insurer ever conducted sponsored received the results of financed and participated in any manner including as a subject ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that this interrogatory appears to be intended for the manufacturers of containing brakes clutches and gaskets PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions did not manufacture brakes clutches and gaskets rather they assembled heavy duty trucks INTERROGATORY NO 10 Identify any and all persons employed by Defendant and any predecessor entity at any time from 1940 to date in a management or upper supervisory including upper assistants and associates position having responsibility in each of the areas listed below a Occupational health and industrial hygiene b Compliance with federal state and local health safety and environmental regulations including but limited to OSHA c Medical director and d The manufacture sale distribution possession application installation or use of containing products ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 12 evidence Further answering without waiving objection PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture asbestoscontaining products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks As such PACCAR did not employ anybody for the purpose of manufacture sale distribution possession application installation or use of containing materials PACCAR has at various points in time employed a medical director and an industrial hygienist in order to assure compliance with OSHA and other applicable regulations relating to employee health and safety PACCAR is not able to reconstruct with any particularity the details of any specific individual's employment However PACCAR is informed and believes it may have employed David Bissonnette as an industrial hygienist from 1974 to 2000 and Robert Shumacher as an industrial hygienist from 1984 to 1986. Steve Miller is PACCAR's current industrial hygienist As for medical director PACCAR is informed and believes that it employed Dr. J.F. Johanson as a medical director in the 1970s Dr. J.M. Hughes as a medical director in 1984 and Dr. Francis VonFeldt as a medical director from 1985 to 2000 INTERROGATORY NO 11 Identify any and all persons or entities other than the employees listed above including but not limited to insurance carriers and related companies which provided services information consulting and advice to Defendant and any predecessor entity at any time from 1940 to date relating to occupational health safety and industrial hygiene ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not 13 relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence INTERROGATORY NO 12 Identify any and all scientific or medical periodicals to which Defendant and any predecessor entity or any medical department or industrial hygiene division thereof subscribed from 1940 to the present and for each periodical state the dates of such subscriptions ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence INTERROGATORY NO 13 Did Defendant and any predecessor entity or any workers compensation insurance carrier thereof ever have any claims for lung diseases or death from lung disease whether directly or indirectly attributed to asbestosis mesothelioma lung cancer or exposure to containing products If so identify the first ten 10 alleged asbestos claims of any kind the first ten 10 claims involving alleged asbestos malignancy and all alleged mesothelioma claims ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted It also inappropriately calls for a legal conclusion regarding the succession 14 of corporate liabilities Subject to and without waiving objection PACCAR is aware of 3 workers compensation claims made against it alleging lung disease Albert Luperine vs. Peterbilt PACCAR Inc Peterbilt Newark Plant California WCAB No SF0 0370-237 Claim No 100 940 001. The Judge in the case issued an Order of Dismissal and found that the record did not sufficiently establish that Mr. Luperine was exposed to asbestos We believe this claim was filed in the early 1990s Florence Igne Alfred M. Igne deceased vs. PACCAR Inc. Peterbilt Newark Plant California WCAB No SFO 0416949 Claim No 6018003391. Parties to the claim settled PACCAR's payment was 500 We believe this claim was filed in the late 1990s Jerald Ogan v Kenworth Truck Co. Chillicothe Ohio factory Claim filed June 5 2002 Industrial Commission of Ohio Claim 00-821905 mesothelioma The Judge denied the claim based on insufficient evidence of exposure to asbestos at Kenworth and lack of medical evidence relating the death to any exposure This determination was upheld on appeal No __ __. payment made INTERROGATORY NO 14 Has Defendant and any predecessor entity been named as a party in any prior suit alleging lung diseases or death from lung disease whether directly or indirectly attributed to asbestosis mesothelioma lung cancer or exposure to containing products If so identify the first ten 10 alleged asbestos claims of any kind the first ten 10 claims involving alleged asbestos malignancy and the first ten 10 alleged mesothelioma claims 15 ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence It also inappropriately calls for a legal conclusion regarding the succession of corporate liabilities INTERROGATORY NO 15 Identify any and all trade organizations associations or other entities including but not limited to American Textile Institute ATI Asbestos Information Association AIA Industrial Health Foundation or Industrial Hygiene Foundation IHF National Insulation Manufacturers Assn NIMA National Insulation Contractors Assn NICA National Safety Council NSC American Ceramics Society ACS National Building Materials Distributors Assn NIA Sprayed Mineral Fiber Manufacturers Assn SMFMA Thermal Insulation Manufacturers TIMA Quebec Asbestos Mining Assn QAMA to which Defendant and any predecessor entity belonged or in which any or all of the same participated or were in any way affiliated with since 1930 and state the applicable dates of such membership or participation ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant 16 to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Further answering without waiving objection PACCAR has been a member of the Truck Manufacturers Association TMA and the Engine Manufacturers Association EMA Memberships to both the TMA and EMA would have commenced sometime in the early middle 1990s INTERROGATORY NO 16 Identify each and every occasion on which Defendant and any predecessor entity at any time had a representative present at any meetings seminars conferences symposiums and like gatherings including but not limited to one sponsored by any organization listed in response to Interrogatory No. 15 at which the subject of asbestos was discussed or presented and at which information referring to relating to and reflecting the same was available including but not limited to asbestos health hazards related diseases scientific literature recommended practices and controls medical monitoring marketing advertising warnings and litigation ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 17 INTERROGATORY NO 17 Identify any and all documents referring to relating to and reflecting the response to or compliance with of Defendant and any predecessor entity with the Asbestos Information Act of 1988 Pub L. 100-577 15 U.S Section 2607 regardless of whether or not said document was provided to the government This specifically includes hut is not limited to memoranda reports notes letters correspondence and any and all drafts thereof referring to relating to and reflecting information hat was and was not provided ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence PACCAR further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney privilege the attorney work product doctrine and the consulting expert privilege INTERROGATORY NO 18 Identify by date source subject matter and recipient each and every occasion on which Defendant and any predecessor entity received information from any source involving asbestos including but not limited to its health hazards related diseases scientific literature recommended practices and controls medical monitoring marketing advertising warnings and litigation 18 ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence " PACCAR further objects based on the fact that this Interrogatory appears to be directed towards manufacturers of containing products PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture asbestos- containing products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks INTERROGATORY NO 19 Identify each and every policy procedure step and program undertaken implemented discussed and contemplated by Defendant and any predecessor entity involving and intended to involve protecting any person or persons including but not limited _ to employees product users and standers in any way from exposure to asbestos including but not limited to abatement substitution warnings instructions engineering controls product modification and protective equipment ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatory is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 19 evidence PACCAR further objects based on the fact that this Interrogatory appears to be directed towards manufacturers of containing products PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture asbestos- containing products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks INTERROGATORY NO 20 Identify each and every occasion on which defendant and any predecessor entity was ever cited warned fined sanctioned or otherwise officially written up for any violation of a federal state or local statute law rule ordinance code administrative order executive order or the like by any federal state or local governmental entity which violation concerned asbestos in any way ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Interrogatoryis not t relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances issiusesue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence PACCAR further objects based on the fact that this Interrogatory appears to be directed towards manufacturers of containing products PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture asbestoscontaining products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks Subject to and without waiving objection PACCAR is not currently aware of any such instances concerning asbestos 20 INTERROGATORY NO 21 Did Defendant and any predecessor entity at arty time provide to anyone including but not limited to employees customers and end users any warning caution notification guidelines practices advice recommendation and like communication in any form or by any means including but not limited to written oral or other media either separately in sales literature affixed to a product and on or as part of the packaging concerning the hazards of asbestos the association between asbestos and asbestos diseases specifically cancer and mesothelioma TLVs recommended practices for working with and around containing materials and any precaution relating to asbestos If so a Describe the content of each such communication including differences and changes thereto b Describe each and every method by which it was communicated C. State the date on which and during which said communication was composed and identify any and all persons who participated in composing it www ees San tor me d State the date during which said communication was disseminate and identify the persons and groups to whom it was disseminated e Describe the reasons for the communication f Identify any and all discussions relating to the subject including but not limited to prior discussions concerning whether or not to issue such communication and g Identify any and all documents referring to relating to and reflecting said communication and any discussion and dissemination thereof 21 ANSWER PACCAR objects to the relevancy of this interrogatory because Mr. Dobson was never employed by a Kenworth or Peterbilt dealer was not a purchaser or customer of Kenworth or Peterbilt trucks and has not testified that he ever had or saw a Kenworth or Peterbilt manual or literature Further answering without waiving objection PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture asbestoscontaining products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks These vehicles included among other components axles transmissions and engines that were manufactured by various component suppliers PACCAR is informed and believes that some of these assembled component parts may have at various points in time incorporated brakes clutches and gaskets that contained some form of encapsulated chrysotile These products were at all times manufactured by and obtained from various component part suppliers that are unrelated to PACCAR PACCAR did not specify the use of asbestos in these component parts Moreover PACCAR did not know the formulation or chemical composition of these component parts as such information was the proprietary trade secret of the products manufacturers If those products contained asbestos at some point in time it was because the component manufacturers independently determined that asbestos was a necessary part of the formulation to achieve mandated performance specifications Further answering without waiving objection Kenworth and Peterbilt provided service literature authored by their component suppliers to dealers and customers Specifically Kenworth and Peterbilt provided their dealers with master shop manuals that were comprised of a series of three binders which included component supplier service manuals Kenworth 22 and Peterbilt also made these master shop manuals available to users for purchase Additionally Kenworth and Peterbilt provided individual component supplier manuals inside the glove compartments or sleeper compartments of their trucks These manuals would correspond to the particular components specified by the user for a given truck Upon information and belief some of these component service manuals would have contained asbestos warnings starting in the 1970s PACCAR has located a 1978 Rockwell brake maintenance manual containing such a warning INTERROGATORY NO 22 State the date on which any official of Defendant or its predecessor first had knowledge notice information or understanding that exposure to asbestos would could or might cause each of the following diseases a Pleural disease b Asbestosis C. Mesothelioma _ d Lung cancer e Any other forms of cancer ANSWER PACCAR objects this Interrogatory is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted It also inappropriately calls for an expert medical opinion PACCAR further objects on the basis that as a corporation it is impossible to pinpoint a date when a corporate entity first had knowledge notice information or understanding about something PACCAR further objects to the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an expert medical opinion 23 INTERROGATORY NO 23 With respect to each disease set forth in Interrogatory No. 22 a Identify the manner in which Defendant first obtained said knowledge notice information or understanding b Identify any and all documents referring to relating to or reflecting the receipt of such knowledge notice information or understanding and ^' C. Describe what if any Defendant and any predecessor / related entity took in response to such knowledge notice information or understanding - ANSWER Please see PACCAR's Answer to Interrogatory No. 22 Respectfully submitted By Crester S Attorney for Defendant PACCAR Inc Anastasios Foukas Esq - 56086 Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd. 233 S. Wacker Drive Suite 5500 Chicago Illinois 60606 312 645-7800 24 VERIFICATION Rod Curbo being first duly sworn deposes and states as follows That he is the Product Safety & Compliance Manager for Peterbilt Motors Company a division of PACCAR Inc which is a defendant in the above entitled action that he has read the foregoing Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and knows the contents thereof that said Answers were prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel and the assistance of employees and representatives of PACCAR Inc upon which he relied that the Answers subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors are based on and therefore necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence presented or recollected and thus far discovered in the course of the preparation of the Answers that consequently defendant reserves the right to make any changes in the Answers if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available that subject to the limitations set forth herein said Answers are true to the best of his knowledge information and belief SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 24TH DAY OF July 2012 3 PUBLIC PUBLIC ROBERTA L WOOLWORTH PUBLIC PUBLIC STATE NOTARY SSTTAATTE E Comm State ofTexas Exp 02-19-2016 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ST LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI TWENTY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT BERT DOBSON and GLORIA DOBSON Petitioner Petitioner ) Cause No CC00841 ) BY ) ) A.W. CHESTERTON INC et al ) ) \ Defendant ) PACCAR INC'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT Defendant PACCAR Inc hereinafter PACCAR by and through its attorneys Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd. and for its Responses to Plaintiff'sPlaintif's Request for Production of Documents to Defendant states as follows PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses are provided only for those products to which Plaintiff has alleged exposure These responses are based on an ongoing review of PACCAR's documents and information obtained from ongoing discussions with various PACCAR personnel Much of the information requested dates back many years and is difficult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve Therefore PACCAR reserves the right to amend these responses if more information becomes available PACCAR prepared these responses with the assistance of counsel No single employee officer or agent of PACCAR has hand knowledge regarding each and every response The person signing these responses does so to satisfy whatever requirements may exist under the applicable rules regarding verification That person is informed and believes that the information known as of the date of his signature supports the responses below DEFINITIONS Plaintiff's Definitions are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity PACCAR objects to those Definitions as overly broad vague and confusing as drafted PACCAR further objects to Plaintiff's Definitions in that they include meanings and characterizations inconsistent with PACCAR's interpretation of the defined terms and phrases GENERAL OBJECTIONS PACCAR objects to Plaintiff's Requests for Production to the extent that they seek corporate knowledge as it is impossible for PACCAR to set forth the collective knowledge of all of its past or present employees PACCAR reserves the right to revise correct supplement and amend its responses to provide information discovered subsequent to the answers contained herein PACCAR asserts the following objections and incorporates each by reference into each and every response to Plaintiff's Requests set forth herein a PACCAR asserts the right to object on the grounds of competency privilege relevancy materiality or any other proper ground to the use of any said responses for any purpose in whole or in part in any subsequent step or proceeding in this litigation b PACCAR asserts the right to object on any other ground to other Requests for Production or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests answered herein c PACCAR asserts the right to revise correct supplement or clarify any of the responses or objections set forth herein at any time and PACCAR reserves the right to object to the use of these responses at trial or any other proceeding as deemed necessary and appropriate by PACCAR d PACCAR objects to the Plaintiff's Requests to the extent that they involve matters outside of the geographical area at issue in this litigation and limits its responses to said area e Furthermore these Requests for Production ask PACCAR to disclose information of which may no longer exist or may not be readily available is unrelated to the products which Plaintiff alleges exposure to in this litigation and information which is also unrelated to the locations at which any PACCAR product was allegedly used the conditions under which the products were allegedly used the time period during which any PACCAR product was allegedly in use at any alleged work sites or the time periods during which exposure to a PACCAR product allegedly occurred Thus these Requests seek information which is neither material nor relevant to the issues in this litigation are overly broad in time scope and location and are otherwise not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence f These Requests are oppressive and burdensome and would require PACCAR to undertake a massive and extraordinary document search the results of which would have little to no demonstrable bearing on this litigation in light of the alleged exposure Moreover many of these Requests are not susceptible to a response because they request information which dates back many years and is now virtually impossible for PACCAR to reconstruct or retrieve in its entirety g PACCAR objects to these Requests for Production because they were propounded to harass and coerce a settlement despite the lack or complete absence of verifiable product identification and the lack of evidence of injury as a result of alleged exposure to or use of any product which PACCAR may or may not have manufactured h PACCAR objects to these Requests because they are propounded for an additional improper purpose namely as a fishing expedition for the purposes of obtaining information that may be taken out of context by Plaintiff's counsel to create allegations against PACCAR where none may legitimately exist i PACCAR objects to these Interrogatories as overly broad in that they seek information from entities other than itself or its predecessors PACCAR over the course of its long history has owned several businesses which are not involved in the instant litigation Therefore all references in these Interrogatories to YOU YOUR COMPANY and THIS DEFENDANT are assumed to refer only to PACCAR's unincorporated truck divisions Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company j PACCAR objects to each and every Response that seeks production of any information constituting a trade secret confidential financial data or other confidential research development or commercial information k PACCAR objects on the basis that these Requests are argumentative because they assume that a health hazard is created by the PACCAR products that may have incorporated containing component parts which PACCAR denies 1 PACCAR objects to these Requests on the basis that they are vague and ambiguous The Requests relating to certain diseases fail to provide facts relating to the amount of exposure duration of exposure fiber type in exposure and latency period m PACCAR objects to these Requests in that they tend to group together all of the defendants in this litigation and are therefore overly broad unduly burdensome harassing and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and material evidence n PACCAR objects to each and every Request that calls for either pure speculation or legal conclusions on the part of PACCAR for its answers 0 PACCAR objects to these Requests to the extent that they call for a medical conclusion beyond the scope of PACCAR's knowledge and capability p PACCAR objects to each and every Request that purports to impose any obligations on it that are not set forth in the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure the q PACCAR objects to these Requests to : extent that they seek information protected by the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine r PACCAR objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek disclosure of information generated by persons other than PACCAR that has come into the possession of PACCAR's counsel during the course of discovery and trial preparation in asbestos litigation s PACCAR objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek information for any period subsequent to Bert Dobson's alleged exposure t PACCAR objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not under PACCAR's custody or control or which is within the public domain or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff as it is to PACCAR Without waiving any of the foregoing objections PACCAR states as follows RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1 Any and all documents as described in the following Interrogatories served herewith Interrogatory No. 1 Interrogatory No. 17 Interrogatory No. 21 ; and Interrogatory No. 23 b RESPONSE ASS Please see PACCAR's Answers to Interrogatory Nos 1 17 21 and 23 Any and all corporate annual reports for each and every year from 1940 to date relating to Defendant any predecessor and related entity RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as & \ drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 3 Any and all depositions and trial transcripts excluding those in matters to which a client of Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC was a party at the time in any case alleging exposure to asbestos and containing products / materials reflecting testimony by any current and former director officer employee and agent of defendant any predecessor and related entity RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 4 Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever including but not limited to any purchase orders invoices contracts shipping records accounting records order books account books contract books inventory records specification standards engineering standards or sales ledgers of the Defendant which refer reflect concern or relate to in any way the sale purchase receipt distribution transfer shipment specification installation or removal of any containing product at any location wherein the use of such containing product has been alleged in this litigation RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that its Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions have manufactured thousands of trucks during the relevant time period that those trucks were custom at the direction request or specification of the user that information regarding those trucks is maintained by Vehicle Identification Number and that the location and identification of information responsive to this Request is burdensome and oppressive 5. Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever referring reflecting concerning or relating to asbestos and the potential health effects of asbestos authored by any officer director employee agent or consultant of this Defendant RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to and without waiving objection after a reasonable and diligent search PACCAR has not located any responsive documents 6 Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever in the possession control or custody of this Defendant referring reflecting concerning or relating to asbestos and the potential health effects of asbestos regardless of whether the author or authors were employees agents officers directors or consultants of the Defendant RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to - lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 7 Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever including but not limited to any dust studies industrial hygiene survey and test results which refer reflect concern or relate to any dust or particulate matter suspended in any breathable atmosphere at any of the Defendant's plants or work sites or any location where Defendant's containing products were being used installed or removed RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that this Request appears to be intended for the manufacturers of containing brakes clutches and gaskets Employees of PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions did not handle raw asbestos or manufacture brakes clutches and gaskets rather they assembled heavy duty trucks 8. Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever referring reflecting concerning or relating to in any way the effects of the absorption or inhalation of asbestos dust and airborne asbestos particles on humans and animals in the possession of this Defendant or which this Defendant ever received conducted participated in or funded in whole or part RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that this Request appears to be intended for the manufacturers of containing brakes clutches and gaskets Employees of PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions did not handle raw asbestos or manufacture brakes clutches and gaskets rather they assembled heavy duty trucks 9 Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever reflecting any claim or claims made against this Defendant wherein it was alleged that any individual sustained an injury impairment disease or death caused by exposure to asbestos including but not limited to all lawsuits or worker compensation claims filed against this Defendant While Plaintiffs reserve their right to request any of the above noted documents in the future it is presently sufficient that the documents requested be produced for the first ten worker compensation claims filed and the first ten lawsuits filed RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that \ ai this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 10. Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever referring reflecting concerning or relating to any way the employment since 1930 of any industrial hygienist toxicologist or other persons in similar positions by this Defendant Specifically included within the scope of this request are any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever for any individuals or entities employed in the positions identified above whether it is in a traditional employee relationship or that of an independent contractor RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 11 Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever referring reflecting concerning or relating to in any way whatsoever to any instructions advice 10 suggestions warnings guidance notification training or education on any health effects on humans or animals of the absorption or inhalation of asbestos fibers or other dusts in the possession control or custody of the Defendant regardless of whether the writings or documents were authored by employees and consultants of the Defendant provided to it by any of the obtained containing obtained asbestos or containing companies from which it purchased or a \ or products or from any or other source whatsoever including but not limited to trade associations manufacturing associations or other professional entities or organizations RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that this Request appears to be intended for the manufacturers of containing brakes clutches and gaskets PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions did not handle raw asbestos or manufacture brakes clutches and gaskets rather they assembled heavy duty trucks 12. Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever which refer reflect concern or relate to in any way to any seminars symposiums any meetings of any trade organizations associations or other professional entities attended by any officers directors employees agents or consultants of the Defendant wherein asbestos containing products or the health effects of the absorption and inhalation of asbestos fibers or other dusts on humans and animals was discussed referred to related to or concerned in any way 11 Specifically included within the scope of this request are any minutes of any such meetings committees or committees of any trade organizations associations or other professional entities or organizations RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to and without waiving objection after a reasonable and diligent search PACCAR has not located any responsive documents 13. Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever referring reflecting concerning or relating to in any way whatsoever any health surveillance program conducted by or on behalf of this Defendant on it's employees RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that this Request appears to be intended for the manufacturers of containing brakes clutches and gaskets PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions did not handle raw asbestos or manufacture brakes clutches and gaskets rather they assembled heavy duty trucks Further answering without waiving objection Because PACCAR employees assembled trucks and were not handling raw asbestos or manufacturing containing component parts no such health surveillance program relating to asbestos was established for its 12 employees during the relevant time period However PACCAR did provide medical coverage to qualified employees under which any individual could seek a medical determination of the presence or absence of asbestos disease 14 Any and all policies of insurance which may provide coverage for this Defendant against the claims asserted in Plaintiffs complaint RESPONSE \ PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts PACCAR further objects this Request inappropriately calls for a legal conclusion 15. Any and all writings or documents of any nature whatsoever referring reflecting concerning or relating to in any way the use by this Defendant of any other company's name trademark or logo on any containing product sold or distributed by this Defendant RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections PACCAR's Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motors Company divisions did not use raw asbestos or manufacture containing products rather they assembled and sold heavy duty trucks These vehicles included among other components axles transmissions and engines that were manufactured by various component suppliers PACCAR is informed and believes that some of these pre- 13 assembled component parts may have at various points in time incorporated brakes clutches and gaskets that contained some form of encapsulated chrysotile These products were at all times manufactured by and obtained from various component part suppliers that are unrelated to PACCAR PACCAR did not specify the use of asbestos in these component parts Moreover PACCAR did not know the formulation or chemical * component composition of these al parts as such information was the proprietary trade secret of the products manufacturers If those products contained asbestos at some point in time it was because the component manufacturers independently determined that asbestos was a necessary part of the formulation to achieve mandated performance specifications Further answering without waiving objection Kenworth and Peterbilt's heavy duty trucks are custom These are extremely complicated machines that vary in form and function based on customer specification and commercial or vocational purpose The possible variations of these custom trucks number in the tens of thousands at least Accordingly without more specification PACCAR cannot provide a response 16. Any writings or documents of any nature whatsoever including but not limited to any minutes notes memorandum or electronic or stenographic recording of any formal or informal meetings of any of the officers and board of directors of this Defendant mentioning referring reflecting concerning or relating to asbestos or containing products and the health effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers on humans and animals RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague and confusing as drafted Additionally PACCAR objects on the basis that this Request appears to be intended for the manufacturers of containing brakes clutches and gaskets Employees 14 of PACCAR's unincorporated Kenworth and Peterbilt divisions did not handle raw asbestos or manufacture brakes clutches and gaskets rather they assembled heavy duty trucks 17. Any and all documents that Defendant intends to use as an exhibit at trial it is an acceptable response to make any and all documents set forth on defendant's exhibit list available for inspection and copying RESPONSE PACCAR objects this Request is overly broad not limited in scope vague confusing as drafted and assumes facts Additionally PACCAR objects to the extent that this Request is not relevant to the Plaintiff facilities locations and circumstances at issue in this litigation and to the extent it seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence PACCAR further objects based on the fact that it hasn't selected which exhibits if any it intends to use at trial PACCAR will disclose any trial exhibits in compliance with the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable case management order a Respectfully submitted Anastasios Foukas Esq - 56086 Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd. 233 S. Wacker Drive Suite 5500 Chicago Illinois 60606 312 645-7800 Attorney for Defendant PACCAR Inc 15 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF MISSOURI TWENTY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT City of St. Louis BERT DOBSON and GLORIA DOBSON Petitioner V. A.W. CHESTERTON INC et al Defendant BY ) Cause No CC0084 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 6301-983 Certificate Of Service The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Defendant PACCAR Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Manufacturer Interrogatories Directed to Defendant and PACCAR Inc.'s Answers to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents to Defendants was mailed U.S. Mail postage prepaid to Nicholas Angelides Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC 707 Berkshire Blvd. East Alton IL 62024 this 22nd day of August 2012 Copies are available to all defense counsel by contacting the undersigned Respectfully Submitted SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD Ana By One of the Attorneys for Defendant PACCAR INC Anastasios T. Foukas - 56086 SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD Willis Tower - 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 5500 Chicago Illinois 60606 312 645-7800 312 645-7711 Facsimile Case No. CC00841 Page 1 of 1