Document zdxM3E55xvnN1Y7Rv0n6jE6GB

DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO Boulder District Court 1777 6th Street P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, Colorado 80306 IN RE: ASBESTOS CASES Attorneys for Defendant: Name(s): Mary Price Birk #10415 Ronald L. Hellbusch, #26094 Address: Baker & Hostetler LLP 303 E. 17th Ave., #1100 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone Number: 303-861-0600 Fax Number: 303-861-7805 A COURT USE ONLY A Case Number 1989CV2000 Div. A2 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SoiUmPmPLEMENTaAtL TINOTrEmRnRnOAnGAa rTr/%OnRTTIE7CSi Aa ANmDnRi7E/\QTUTiE?SorTrcSVAOnR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION GENERAL OBJECTIONS Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") objects to the entire set o[ Plaintiffs' interrogatories on the following grounds, which are hereby incorporated by reierence in Union Carbide's responses to individual interrogatories below: GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 1 Union Carbide states that trial preparation and factual investigation are! ongomg. Union Carbide's responses to these interrogatories are based on information kjiown to Union Carbide at this time. Union Carbide reserves the right, however to makje reference at the trial or at any hearing in this action to facts and documents not identifier in these responses, the existence or relevance of which is later discovered by it or its aolunsel. By this reservation, Union Carbide does not in any way assume a continuing res;ipqnsibility to update its responses to these interrogatories, and specifically objects to each in errogatory that seeks to impose any such continuing obligation upon Union Carbide to the extent not required by law. To the extent the information contained herein differs in any espect from any prior responses to discovery, these responses shall be deemed to upd4tie and supersede such prior responses. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 2: Union Carbide objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories in their entirety on t le grounds that they are not reasonably framed in terms of the facts and subject matter of t re present action, with the result that Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to wha information relevant to the present case, if any, may be deemed to fall within t le scope of these interrogatories as phrased. In addition, Union Carbide objects to this set of interrogatories to the extent that they seek the production of information not re evant to any matter at issue in this litigation. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 3: Union Carbide objects to these interrogatories insofar as they would require the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 4: Union Carbide acquired mineral rights to its Coalinga mine in 1958. F :om 1958 until late 1963, Union Carbide developed its mining and milling processes. Frpm late 1963 until June 30,1985, Union Carbide mined and sold a unique tremolite-ffie short -2- fiber chrysotile asbestos initially known as "Union Carbide Asbestos" and theij under the trade name "Calidria" (some distributors marketed Calidria under other trade n|imes). Throughout the time that Union Carbide was in the asbestos business, and part: cularly from 1963 to 1965, sales were relatively small. Even as Union Carbide attem]Rted to develop business, Union Carbide remained a relatively small participant with iits focus, due to the unique nature of Calidria, on developing applications suitable for thf: unique fiber. All responses to these interrogatories refer to Calidria asbestos only, uni ss otherwise stated. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 5: Union Carbide objects to this entire set of interrogatories to the extent that they call for information about Union Carbide employees or premises, or policies Pfirtaining to Union Carbide employees or premises that are unrelated to the claims in this li igation on the grounds that such requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 6: Union Carbide objects to this entire set of interrogatories to the extent Ipatthey seek information contained in documents that are available to Plaintiffs' counsfc1 in the repositories of documents (the "repositories") maintained by Union Carbide's Counsel. The repositories are supplemented as additional documents are identified and Have been supplemented in the past year. Upon request, a visit to the repositories by Plaij-itiffs' counsel can be arranged at a mutually convenient time. The burden of determ:i ning the responses to these requests for production is equally as demanding on Plaintiff^' counsel as it is on Union Carbide. The burden on Union Carbide is enhanced because many oi f the -3- events and circumstances that appear to be at issue took place approximately 4D years ago. With the passage of time, complete records may no longer exist, relevantlwitnesses with firsthand knowledge are now deceased, memories have faded, and any attempt to recreate history often presents an insurmountable challenge and an undue burdfe:n. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 7: Calidria is not "asbestos" or an "asbestos-containing product" as refemI :d to by Plaintiffs in these interrogatories. Calidria is a unique short-fiber chrysotile as lestos uncontaminated by tremolite which Union Carbide extracted from an asbestos ore body in the New Idria area of San Benito County in California. Calidria was markeilied and sold by Union Carbide or by Calidria distributors to manufacturers or produce] s who incorporated and used Calidria in their products or production processes. Fron i 1963 to 1985, Union Carbide sold Calidria asbestos fiber to various third party manufa:turers or distributors. The asbestos third party manufacturers to whom Union Carbide sbld Calidria used it in manufacturing various products used in commercial applications. Union Carbide did not manufacture those products and had no control over the nature of the products in which the fiber was used. Nevertheless, Union Carbide consisgently provided its customers with health and safety information regarding the health effects of asbestos so that, among other things, this information could be passed along to the third party manufacturers' customers. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 8: Union Carbide objects to providing information about any of its products other than Calidria asbestos or phenolic molding compounds and phenolic resins. Ah:y request for documents or information relating to any Union Carbide products other th; Calidria -4- asbestos or phenolic molding compounds and phenolic resins, is overly broad, pnduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 9: Union Carbide objects to this entire set of Discovery Requests to the exti;ent that plaintiffs allege exposure to a finished product. Union Carbide's phenolic motiling compounds were intermediate materials sold to manufacturers who would use hem to mold or manufacture final products. Upon information and belief, no plaintiff^ in these cases allege exposure to a phenolic resin or phenolic molding compound, or eMe:nto a finished product manufactured by someone other than Union Carbide made of these components, and therefore, any question relating to conditions at the manufact iring facilities of Union Carbide's asbestos-containing phenolic molding compound: is irrelevant to any matter at issue in this litigation. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Is the document attached a true and correct copy of an authentic document? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 See General Objections Nos. 1-9. Union Carbide further objects to thi^ Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is unrelated to any claims brought against Union Carbide and therefore is not reasonably calculated to leid to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Exhibit A is an incomplete copy of a report prepared by L. D. FishbeJ'g and C. -5- F. Martino for Union Carbide. Union Carbide further states that it is unable to provide information regarding the bates labels affixed to Exhibit A. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Where is the original document located? Please provide address and custodian] of this record. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 See General Objections Nos. 1 -9. Union Carbide further objects to thi Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is unrelated to any claims brought against Union Carbide and therefore is not reasonably calculated to lea d to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: The document (without the bates numbers labeled on Exhibit A) is lofcated in a document repository maintained by Union Carbide's counsel (the "repository") at 190 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603. John MacDonald is the custodian of records for Union Carbide. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 On the eighth page of the document (the page is numbered "7" at the bottom of the page) the following language appears: "7. Special packing requirements for Cutler F ammer: "Caution" label on container must be blanked out. Each pallet should contain i maximum of 1500 pounds." (a) Please state verbatim the wording of the "Caution" to which reference is made; (b) Please produce a legible photocopy ofthe "Caution" to which reference is made; (c) Please produce all documents that reference any request or dire< :tion by Cutler Hammer to blank out or remove the caution label on containers of products supplied by Union Carbide. (d) -6- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 See General Objections Nos. 1-9. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is unrelated to my claims brought against Union Carbide in these cases and therefore is not reasonably a lculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this interrogatory because the caution label referenced did not relate to asbestos INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Please state whether UCC did supply products to Cutler Hammer on which anjJ caution label on the container had been blanked out. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Please identify the author of the eighth page of the document attached (the pag^ is numbered "7" at the bottom of the page) and: (a) State whether the author identified employed by Union Carbide) as of October 29,1965, and if so; (b) State the author's job title or position of employment as of the qate of October 29,1965. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 See General Objections Nos. 1-9. Union Carbide further objects to thils Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is unrelated to any c laims brought against Union Carbide and therefore is not reasonably calculated to lei id to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to its objections. Union Carbide res ponds as follows: Lewis D. Fishberg signed the eighth page of Exhibit A. As of Octo )er 29, -7- 1965, Mr. Fishberg was employed as a chemical engineer in the Phenolic Mol< ing Material Group (R&D) at the Union Carbide Bound Brook plant. AS TO OBJECTIONS AND DEF ENSES: Duly executed signature on file at the office of Baker & Hostetler LLP Price Bjfk, Esq. #10415 Ronald L. Hellbusch, Esq. #2<k094 BAKER'fc HOSTETLER, LI P Attorneys for Defendant Union Carbide Corporation -8- VERIFICATION STATE OF CONNECTICUT) ) COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD ) ss: JOHN MACDONALD, being duly sworn according to law, dimposes and says: that he is the Assistant Corporate Secretary of defendant Union Carbide Corporailtion, that he has read the answers to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production and is fsdmiliar with their contents; that the answers set forth herein were assembled and prepared by counpel for defendant based on information provided to counsel by employees or former employdes through their sworn testimony and/or contained in documents located in the repository of| asbestos-related documents maintained by counsel; and that to the best of deponent's knowledge information and belief, the responses are true. Sworn to before me this of^cv\,2004. day John Macdonald Assistant Corporate Secretary LINDA M. FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC '"'iu<SS!0N EXPIRES 1001/2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of April, 2004, a true and a):irrect copy of the above and foregoing UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S RESPOPfSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEsrriS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION was served via JusticeLink or by U.S. mail, postage prepaid[ as indicated to: J. Conard Metcalf, Esq. Trine & Metcalf, P.C. 1435 Arapahoe Ave. Boulder, CO 80302-6390 Attorneysfor Plaintiffs VIA JUSTICELINK Duly executed signature on file at the office of Baker & Hostetler LLP -9- Page 1 of 1 Nanc^Adler_________________________________________ ____________ From: To: Sent: Subject: "LexisNexis File and Serve" <efile@fileandserve.lexisnexis.com> <NAdler@Trine-Metcalf.com> Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:38 PM Case: 1989CV2000; Filing: 3415599 - Notification of Service John Conard Metcalf requested that you, Nancy Dene Adler, receive a copy of this notification for Filing ID 3415599. The details for this filing are listed below. To: John Conard Metcalf From: LexisNexis File & Serve Subject: Service of Documents in IN RE ASBESTOS vs. AP GREEN INDUSTRIES INC et al You are being served documents that have been electronically filed in IN RE ASBESTOS vs. AP GREEN INDUSTRIES INC et al through LexisNexis File & Serve. The details of this filing are listed below. You can view the documents by accessing them online at http://fileandserve.lexisnexis.com/logon/blank menu.asp . Court: CO Boulder County District Court 20th JD Case Name: IN RE ASBESTOS vs. AP GREEN INDUSTRIES INC et al Case Number: 1989CV2000 Filing ID: 3415599 Document Title(s): Defendant Union Carbides Response to Plaintiffs Discovery to Union Carbide 040316 Union Carbide Corporations Response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Union Carbide Corporation Authorized Date/Time: Apr 13 2004 3:36PM ET Authorizing Attorney: Mary Price Birk Authorizing Attorney Firm: Baker & Hostetler LLP-Denver Filing Parties: UNION CARBIDE, Served Parties: IN RE ASBESTOS, Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve! LexisNexis offers LexisNexis File & Serve training for both new and advanced users. To learn more about LexisNexis File & Serve training options, please visit http://www.lexisnexis.com/FileAndServe/support.asp and click on Training. 4/13/04