Document zoBgpLj1LnZ2pkZ7x0D7jkVon

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO PLAINTIFFS | EXHIBIT * GP-181 ANTHONY MARIO GRECO etal., Plaintiffs, v. A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) CASE NOS. 323629-323678 ) (HANNA, J.) ) ) IN RE: ALL BARON & BUDD ) ASBESTOS CASES ) GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW, Georgia-Pacific Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ("Georgia- % Pacific") a Defendant in the above-styled action, by and through its attorneys of record, and responds to the Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Georgia-Pacific objects to the definitions and instructions which precede plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories on the basis that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek to impose a burden upon Georgia-Pacific which exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Ohio Rules and seek to obtain information and/or identification of documents which are protected by the attorney/client privilege or are otherwise work product. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that plaintiffs seek to impose a continuing duty on Georgia-Pacific which is contrary to the scope of discovery permitted under the Ohio Rules. Georgia-Pacific also objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they are not limited by relevant scope or time. These objections are applicable to Georgia-Pacific's response to each and every request herein, whether or not specifically stated in such response. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP 8/6/97 11:31am PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired into by these Interrogatories occurred more than thirty (30) years ago. In addition, effective April 28, 1965, Georgia-Pacific acquired the Bestwall Gypsum Company ("Bestwall"), which manufactured, among other things, a limited number of asbestos-containing products and Georgia-Pacific continued the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of such products through its Gypsum Division until the cessation of the same at various times thereafter. Prior to its merger with Bestwall, Georgia-Pacific did not manufacture any asbestos-containing products. After its merger with Bestwall, Georgia-Pacific manufactured and/or distributed these asbestos-containing products through its Gypsum Division. Unless otherwise stated, each response and statement contained herein, which specifically relates to Georgia-Pacific, relates to the relevant time periods during which and the asbestos-containing products that GeorgiaPacific manufactured and/or distributed through its Gypsum Division. In 1977, GeorgiaPacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. It does not now nor has it since 1977 manufactured any asbestos-containing products. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which these Interrogatories relate are deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Georgia-Pacific, and investigations to date indicate that at least some information and documents which might relate to matters inquired into by these Interrogatories may have been destroyed pursuant to Georgia-Pacific's or Bestwall's normal record retention policy or are otherwise unable to be found. Georgia-Pacific is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate or confirm the absence of such information and Georgia Pacific also is engaged in a continuing Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -2- 8/6/97 11:31am investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by these Interrogatories. Unless otherwise specifically stated, each Response set out hereinafter is limited to the relevant products and time period during which Bestwall Gypsum Company and the Georgia-Pacific Gypsum Division manufactured asbestos-containing products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference into every Response provided herein after: This Response is based on reasonable investigation and is believed to be accurate as of the date made. However, Georgia-Pacific's investigation of matters that may be relevant to its Response is continuing, and Georgia-Pacific cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the Response being supplied is incorrect. Georgia-Pacific objects to responding to plaintiffs' Interrogatories in regard to any period of time other than the period during which its Gypsum Division engaged in the manufacture of the asbestoscontaining product(s), if any, allegedly involved in this litigation, which ended no later than 1977, or concerning any facility not related to that business, on the basis that any such Response would be irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Unless otherwise specifically stated, this Response refers solely to the products that plaintiff contends are at issue. CORPORATE NAME 1. For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include job title, length of time employed by Defendant and a year by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -3- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: The answers to these interrogatories were prepared after consultation and review of documents and information in Georgia-Pacific's possession, which have been drawn from various individuals and sources within the company. It is not possible to list each and every individual who contributed to the compilation of this information. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that the answers to these interrogatories were prepared after consultation and review of numerous documents and information in Georgia-Pacific's possession, which have been drawn from various individuals and sources within the company. It is not possible to list each and every document which was involved in the compilation of this information. 2. Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) The address of your principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio; (e) For each Defendant claiming that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, list year by year the total amount of income 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. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -4- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: Yes, (a) Georgia-PacificCorporation (b) Georgia (c) 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (d) CT Corporation System, 815 Superior Avenue, N.E., Cleveland, Ohio and CT Corporation System, 441 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (e) Not applicable 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 of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity at any prior time engaged in any aspect of the 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: 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 of Defendant at the time of acquisition; c. 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); 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. identify each document reflecting or related to the history and/or transaction(s) set forth in answer to this Interrogatory. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -5- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER- Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific answers that it has had the following prior names: Dale Name Current Georgia-Pacific Corporation 04-28-65 Georgia-Pacific Corporation merged with Bestwall Gypsum Company 04-27-56 Georgia-Pacific Corporation 04-02-51 Georgia-Pacific Plywood Company 03-26-48 Georgia-Pacific Plywood & Lumber Company 01-04-45 Georgia Hardwood Lumber Company 09-22-27 Georgia Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc. Georgia-Pacific further answers that, in 1965 it acquired Bestwall Gypsum Company, Bestwall Gypsum Company manufactured some asbestos containing gypsum products beginning in 1956. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of all asbestos- containing products. 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 mining, selling, manufacturing, marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products.) If so, please state the following: Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -6- 8/6/97 11:31am a. the name or description of each corporation, entity or assets acquired by Defendant, its state of incorporation and principal place of business, its date of incorporation, and the name of Defendant 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 each such corporation or entity; g. whether the acquisition concerned asbestos-containing products. ANSWER: a. Bestwall Gypsum Company b. Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to this objection Georgia-Pacific states that Bestwall Gypsum Company was acquired through a merger. c. April 30, 1965. d. Georgia Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague as to the term effected, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. e. Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Document: C:\ATI-1\JBA\0221501.WP -7- 8/6/97 11:31am f. Georgia-Pacific states that as part of the acquisition of Bestwall Gypsum Company it has retained successor liability under certain circumstances on behalf of Bestwall Gypsum Company. g. Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia Pacific states that at the time of the acquisition of Bestwall Gypsum Company, that company was manufacturing some products which contained a small amount of asbestos. Georgia-Pacific continued to manufacture some of these products following the acquisition under the Georgia-Pacific name. 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 of the answering defendant's corporation have also served as 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 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 of the responsibilities of the person or persons serving the answering defendant and the entity simultaneously including the positions held with the entity and with the answering defendant. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the Complaint nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as well as on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -8- 8/6/97 11:31am EVER SELL ASBESTOS 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. 4. Its physical description including color, general composition, and form. 5. A detailed description of its intended use and purpose. 6. A detailed description of the type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type of package used, a physical description of the 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 of these 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 of the product but seeks information as to the nature, weight and volume of non-asbestos ingredients, as well) of each such product; (e) How each of these asbestos-containing product can be distinguished from those of competitors; (f) A description of the physical appearance of such product; (g) A detailed description of the intended uses. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -9- 8/6/97 XI:31am ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that is overly broad. unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific would further object on the grounds that this interrogatory may seek information protected by the trade secret privilege. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific responds as follows: (a) Georgia-Pacific or Bestwall Gypsum Company. (b) Georgia-Pacific manufactured the following products: ALL PURPOSE JOINT COMPOUND (1) ALL PURPOSE JOINT COMPOUND (2) Not applicable (3) All purpose joint compound was first placed on the market for national distribution in 1967. Prior to that time, all purpose joint compound may have been available for sale in limited areas. The last year asbestos containing all purpose joint compound was sold was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos free all purpose joint compound. (4) Dry white or off-white power. (5) This product is used to finish walls and ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that all purpose joint compound contained 0-7 % chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -10- 8/6/97 11:31am BEDDING COMPOUND (1) Bedding Compound (2) Not applicable. (3) The first year that Georgia-Pacific or its predecessor sold bedding compound was 1956. The first asbestos free bedding compound was introduced in 1973. The last year that asbestos containing bedding compound was sold was approximately 1977. GeorgiaPacific continues to sell asbestos free bedding compound. (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) This product is used to finished walls and ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this potion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that bedding compound was a joint compound which contained 0 to 7% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. CENTRAL MIX (1) Central Mix (2) Not applicable. (3) 1970 - 1973 (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) This product was used to finish walls and ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -11- 8/6/97 11:31am (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Central Mix was a joint compound which contained 3 7% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. DRYWALL ADHESIVE (1) Drywall Adhesive (2) Not applicable. (3) 1972 (4) Paste (5) Designed to attach wallboard to wood studs. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Drywall Adhesive was a drywall adhesive which contained .8% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. JOINT COMPOUND (1) Joint Compound (2) Not applicable. (3) The first year that Georgia-Pacific or its predecessor sold joint compound was 1956. Asbestos was removed from joint compound in 1974. An asbestos free formula was introduced. The last year that asbestos containing joint compound was sold was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos-free Joint Compound. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -12- 8/6/97 11:31am (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) Joint Compound is used to finish walls and ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that joint compound contained 0 to 6% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. KALITE (1) Kalite v (2) Not applicable. (3) 1956 - 1959 (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) Acoustical Plaster (6) This product was packaged in 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Kalite was an acoustical plaster which contained 0 to 2.6 % chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. LAMINATING COMPOUND - READY MIX (1) Laminating Compound Ready Mix (2) Not applicable. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -13- 8/6/97 11:31am (3) 1969 (4) Paste (5) laminate wallboard (6) Pails or buckets (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that laminating compound contained 0 to 4 % chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific'sresponse to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. LITE ACOUSTIC (1) Lite Acoustic (3) Not applicable (3) 1958 - 1964 (4) Dry white or off-white powder (5) Acoustical Plaster (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific state that Lite Acoustic was an acoustical plaster which contained 25 - 29.09% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific'sresponse to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -14- 8/6/97 11:31am PATCHING PLASTER (1) Patching Plaster (2) Not applicable. (3) Patching plaster was first sold by Georgia-Pacific or its predecessor in 1956. Asbestos was removed from patching plaster in 1975. The last year that asbestos containing patching plaster was sold was approximately 1976. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos free patching plaster. (4) Dry white or off-whitepowder (5) Patching plaster is used to patch certain plasters. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection. Georgia-pacific states that patching plaster contained 0 to 2% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. READY MIX (1) Ready Mix (2) None (3) Ready Mix was first sold in 1963. Asbestos was removed from ready mix in 1975. The last year that asbestos containing ready mix was sold was 1977. Georgia-Pacific continued to sell asbestos free ready mix. (4) Paste (5) Ready Mix is used to finish walls and ceilings. (6) Buckets or pails. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -15- 8/6/97 11:31am (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this porion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that ready mix contained 0 to 4.6% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. SPACKLING COMPOUND (1) Spackling Compound (2) Not applicable. (3) 1956- 1970 or 1971. (4) Dry white or off-white powder (5) Used to finish walls and ceilings (6) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this objection, spackling compound contained 5.5% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. SPEED SET (1) Speed Set (2) Not applicable. (3) 1963 - 1974 (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) Speed Set is used to finish walls or ceilings (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -16- 8/6/97 11:31am objection, Georgia-Pacific states that speed set was a joint compound which contained 0 to 6.75% chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. TEXTURE (1) Cortex, Bestex, Texture (2) Not applicable. (3) The first texture was sold in 1956. The first year asbestos free texture was introduced was 1972. The last year asbestos containing texture was sold was in approximately 1974. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos free texture. (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) Texture is used to give a textured appearance to walls or ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to his portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. Without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Texture was a texture which contained 0 to 15 % chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific'sresponse to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. TOPPING COMPOUND (1) Topping Compound (2) Not applicable. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -17- 8/6/97 11:31am (3) Topping Compound was first sold in 1956. Asbestos was removed from topping compound in 1973. The last year that asbestos containing topping compound was sold was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos free topping compound. (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) Topping Compound is used to finish walls or ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that Topping Compound contained 0 to 7 % chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. TRIPLE DUTY JOINT COMPOUND (1) Triple Duty Joint Compound, Triple Duty Wallboard Joint Compound, and Triple Duty Joint Compound-Vinyl Based Adhesive. (2) Not applicable. (3) Triple duty joint compound was first sold in 1965. Asbestos was removed from triple duty joint compound in 1974. The last year that asbestos containing triple duty joint compound was sold was approximately 1977. Georgia-Pacific continues to sell asbestos free triple duty joint compound. (4) Dry white or off-white powder. (5) Triple Duty Joint Compound is used to finish walls and ceilings. (6) Predominantly 25-50 lb. bags. (7) Georgia-Pacific objects to this portion of plaintiffs' interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is a trade secret. However, without waiving and subject to this Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -18- 6/6/97 11:31am objection, Georgia-Pacific states that triple duty joint compound contained 0 - 7 % chrysotile asbestos. (8) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(7), above. Georgia-Pacific does not have specific product information concerning the small number of products containing asbestos which it sold but did not manufacture. (c) Georgia-Pacific refers plaintiffs to its response to Interrogatory b(3) as to each product identified above. (d) Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this interrogatory may seek information which is a trade secret. v Without waiving these objections, see Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory b(7) as to each product listed above. (e) Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore this interrogatory may seek information which is a trade secret. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific refers plaintiffs to its response to Interrogatory 5(b), above. (f) above. See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory 5(b)(4) as to each product listed (g) See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 5(b)(5) as to each product listed above. 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; Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -19- 8/6/97 11:31am (b) The date same was issued; (c) The number of each patent application that is pending. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, it seeks information which is equally available to Plaintiff and Defendant, and therefore places an undue burden upon Georgia-Pacific to locate and provide information readily available to Plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving these objections, documents which may be responsive to this request will be made available at a mutually convenient time. 7. Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since 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: Defendant Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that the information sought by this Interrogatory is proprietary in nature and involves privileged trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that minor formula changes may have been made from time to time in the product lines for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, improvements in product workability and availability of raw materials. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -20- 8/6/97 11:31am 8. Have any of the 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. (b) The names and address of Defendant's distributors in Ohio and Illinois since 1940. (c) The date of each sale. (d) The name of the person at each location with whom you ply 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it sold a small amount of asbestos-containing products to Johns-Manville, FlintKote, and Big Horn Gypsum Company which would have been sold under their label in the mid-60's to mid-70's. 8.01 Has this -defendant ever purchased asbestos containing products from any other defendant? ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that some of Georgia- Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -21- 8/6/97 11:31am Pacific's Distribution Centers throughout the United States may have purchased small quantities of asbestos-containing products from other manufacturers. 8.02 If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is yes, please state the following: (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: Georgia-Pacific refers plaintiff to Response to Interrogatory No. 8.01. GeorgiaPacific will make information which may be responsive to this Interrogatory available for inspection by Plaintiff's counsel at a mutually convenient time. 8.03 Has this defendant ever sold asbestos containing products to any other defendant? ANSWER: See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 8. 8.04 If the 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; (c) list the dates of each sale of asbestos-containing products to each co-defendant. ANSWER: See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 8. 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 Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -22- 8/6/97 11:31am products for use in connection with temperatures above 125 degree 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 of the container; (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 of package was used, and any logos, product names, trademarks, etc. which appeared on the package; (n) whether the words "non-asbestos'1 or 'asbestos free" were used on the package; (o) a detailed description of the intended method of preparation and application of the product; (p) a description of the physical appearance of the product, including size, shape, color and texture. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -23- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: No. 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 of the manufacturer; (b) the product's trade and brand name; "" (c) the organizational unit of Defendant 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; t (f) identify all documents relating the marketing or distribution. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, merely intended to harass and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. 8.1 Does Defendant have reason to believe that any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 were used at any of the sites listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto. If your answer is "yes", please state: (a) The basis of your answer. (b) Please state which of Defendant's asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 were used at each job site listed on Exhibit A. ANSWER: To the best of its knowledge, no. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -24- 8/6/97 11:31am 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 of each such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt. (d) Names and quantities of the 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: Georgia-Pacific has insufficient information to respond to this Interrogatory in that it has no way of knowing which companies other than Georgia-Pacific may have marketed, distributed, or sold its products to the job sites listed on the Plaintiffs' Exhibit A. 8.3 If you 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 of those companies who Defendant knows marketed, distributed, installed and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1950 to 1974. For each of those companies, please state the following: (a) Name and address of each such company; (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) The names of the asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed, distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Document: C:\ATL1\JBM0221501.WP -25- 8/6/97 11:31am "Without waiving and subject to this objection, Georgia-Pacific refers plaintiffs to GeorgiaPacific's response to Interrogatory No. 8.2. 8.4 Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to any of the 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 of those people with such knowledge. (b) The location of such records. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving its objections, any such information still in existence would be in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department and available for review at a mutually convenient time. 9. Did Defendant or any of Defendant'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 of time they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; (d) Whether that person is still alive; and (e) Any documents relating, referring or pertaining thereto. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -26- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which % is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. 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 of the 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 of the 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. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -27- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWERTo the best of its knowledge, no. 11. Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying or removing asbestos-con refractory? If so, please give the name of each subdivision, the full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. ANSWER: To the best of its knowledge, no. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that the products which at one time contained asbestos were manufactured at various times at the following plant locations: Acme, Texas - This plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured joint systems, Lite acoustic and Kalite in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Akron, New York - This plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured joint systems, Lite Acoustic, Laminating Compound and Drywall Adhesive in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Brunswick, Georgia - This plant has been in operation from 1959 through the present. It manufactured joint systems and Lite Acoustic in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -28- 8/6/97 11:31am Chicago, Illinois - This plant has been in operation from 1967 through 1981. It manufactured joint systems in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Fort Dodge, Iowa - This plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured joint systems and Lite Acoustic in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Marietta, Georgia - This plant has been in operation from 1969 througlTthe present. It made joint systems in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos . Milford, Virginia - This plant has been in operation from 1974 through the present. It made joint systems in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Blue Rapids, Kansas - This plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It manufactured joint systems and Lite Acoustic in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Sigurd, Utah- This plant has been in operation from 1956 through the present. It made Lite Acoustic and joint systems in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. Grand Rapids, Michigan - This plant has been in operation from 1956 throughout the present. It made lite Acoustic in addition to many products that did not contain asbestos. 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 of the company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement; (b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement; Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -29- 8/6/97 11:31am (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: In the mid 60's and early 70's, Georgia-Pacific sold some asbestos containing products to Johns-Manville, Flintkote Corporation, and Big Horn Gypsum Company such products would have been sold under the buyer's label. 13.1 Have you ever owned or operated a business or portion thereof which engaged in construction, erection or tear out of furnaces, 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 of business, 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 name 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: No. 13.2 Do 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: Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -30- 8/6/97 11:31am (a) a description of each such package; (b) the present location and custodian of each such package; (c) the date or approximate date on which each such package was produced. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving its objections, any such information still in existence would be in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific Law Department and available for review at a mutually convenient time. INFORMATION ABOUT PESIGN/TESTING 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 Interrogatory No. 5? ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this Interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Each product which at one time contained asbestos was designed and prepared by members of the research and development department. It is impossible to specifically identify each individual participating in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each product listed which at one time contained asbestos. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -31- 8/6/97 11:31am 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 Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 5. 16. Based upon the material contents of the asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application,, please state which products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 could be applied by a worker without creating dust. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous; that the preparations of a response to this Interrogatory would require Georgia-Pacific to speculate as to the precise circumstances by which various > products could be applied; that it incorrectly implies that Georgia-Pacific was ever under any legal duty to manufacture a product which could be used without creating dust. At such time as any individual plaintiff provides precise information regarding the circumstances of application of a particular Georgia-Pacific product, Georgia-Pacific will attempt to respond further to this inquiry. 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; (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -32- 8/6/97 11:31am AHS30EE-. Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that this Interrogatory seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege or which are otherwise protected work product. Georgia-Pacific further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is proprietary and constitute trade secrets. Without waiving and subject to these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that documents concerning the development and introduction of the above listed products exist and are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific law department. 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 de e potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: To the best of this Defendant's information, prior to the release of the products it manufactured for sale to the public, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos-containing products presented a health hazard. When Georgia-Pacific received information to indicate a potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products utilized in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -33- 8/6/97 11:31am ceased the manufacture of asbestos containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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 of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state, (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER: To the best of this Defendant's information, prior to the release of the products it manufactured for sale to the public, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos-containing products presented a health hazard. When Georgia-Pacific received information to indicate a potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products utilized in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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 of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove? (a) Identify each such written material or document; (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -34- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER'Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is proprietary and constitutes trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that documents concerning the development and introduction for the above listed products exist and are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific law department. 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 of the product changed or modified; (b) The nature of the 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this question on the grounds, that prior to the time Georgiapacific places products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, GeorgiaPacific did not know or have any reason to know that any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using products similar to those manufactured by this defendant, it immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos in its products. 21. After releasing for sale, 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? Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -35- 8/6/97 11:31am (a) The names of the 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) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said tests. ANSWER: Georgia-pacific objects to this question to the extent that prior to the time Georgia- Pacific placed products that contained a small amount of asbestos on the market, Georgia- pacific did not know or have reason to know that any ingredient in any product which it made was hazardous, To the best of our knowledge, Georgia-Pacific did not conduct medical tests. When Georgia-Pacific first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using products similar to his manufactured by this Defendant, Georgia- Pacific immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos in the products. 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 of the 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; Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -36- 8/6/97 11:31am (f) State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; and (g) Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. ANSWER: To the best of this Defendant's information, prior to the release of the products it manufactured for sale to the public, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos-containing products presented a health hazard. When Georgia-Pacific received information to indicate a potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products utilized in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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: To the best of this Defendant's information, prior to the release of the products it manufactured for sale to the public, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos-containing products presented a health hazard. When Georgia-Pacific received Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -37- 8/6/97 11:31am information to indicate a potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products utilized in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or placed caution labels on such products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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, fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestoscontaining 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) The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such dissemination. ANS.WER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, burdensome and irrelevant insofar as it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific further objects to the extent that it seeks information regarding its employees in the manufacturing process on the basis that the plaintiff in this litigation was never employed by Georgia-Pacific at any of its plants where asbestos-containing materials were manufactured and the plaintiff herein does not claim to have been involved with the manufacture of Georgia-Pacific products. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that this interrogatory calls for medical and scientific opinions of an expert nature. Subject to and Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -38- 8/6/9*? 11:31am without waiving these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that, prior to marketing the small number of products which contained a small amount of asbestos, Georgia-Pacific conducted a variety of performance testing on those products. Prior to the release of the products that it manufactured, Georgia-Pacific had no information to indicate that any of its asbestos- containing products presented a health hazard. There was no information in the published medical or scientific literature to indicate a potential health hazard from any drywall finishing products until 1975. When Georgia-Pacific received information which suggested the possible potential health hazard with respect to the use of unrelated products used in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or place caution labels on those products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and, since that time, has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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; (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. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -39- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWERGeorgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that there was no information in the published medical or scientific literature to indicate a potential health hazard from any drywall finishing products until 1975. When Georgia-Pacific received information which suggested the potential health hazard with respect to the appropriate use of products used in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific began to eliminate asbestos from its products and/or place caution labels on those products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestoscontaining products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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 of that information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory requests information which goes well beyond the standard of knowledge and care required of Georgia-Pacific under Ohio law in that it requests information regarding circumstances which have no applicability to the types of products manufactured by this Defendant or the circumstances reasonably anticipated for users of this Defendant's products. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -40- 8/6/97 11:31am Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it first heard a suggestion that there might be a potential health hazard to persons appropriately using its products in the building construction industry in 1970 and immediately began a reformulation program to substitute asbestos from the products. It is believed that the first persons to receive such information were Glenn Wilson, Charles W. Lehnert and M.F. Fink. Georgia-Pacific has no independent medical expertise regarding the specific health effects of.asbestos, however, Georgia-Pacific is aware of information provided by the occupational Safety and Health Administration which relates to a causal connection with asbestos. (See 29 C.F.R. 1926, 58 appendices H-I). 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: Georgia-Pacific never employed a full-time or part-time physician for research, investigation, or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. Georgia-Pacific has hired three industrial hygienists. Donald Olsen was hired in January 1979 and replaced by Steven Tochilin in October 1982. Mr. Tochilin was replaced by Rudi Fillingin in April 1988. All were assigned to corporate headquarters. Further responding, Georgia-Pacific shows that none of these individuals were hired specifically for asbestos. 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. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -41- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the terms "medical advisory capacity" is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, see Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 27. 29. Please state if any 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. ANSWER: To the best of its knowledge, no medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made any recommendations or suggestions to Georgia-Pacific specifically \ pertaining to asbestos products. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that this interrogatory is not limited in scope and/or time. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it has not kept records concerning the periodicals to which it subscribed from 1950 through 1982. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -42- 8/6/97 11:31am 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: To the best of its knowledge, no. 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 Iron and Steel Institute National Safety Counsel Refractories Institute Air Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. Sprayed Mineral Fiber Association If the 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 individual(s) 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it belonged to the Gypsum Association, ASTM, Gypsum Drywall Contractors International, Contract and Plasterers Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -43- 8/6/97 11:31am Association, International Association of Walls and Ceilings; however, the dates of such memberships are unknown at this time. While Georgia-Pacific paid dues to the Gypsum Association, such dues were a prerequisite to membership and did not constitute contributions. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that to the best of its knowledge none of the plaintiffs in this cause have alleged exposure to any asbestos containing material at any facility owned or operated by Georgia-Pacific. However, in accordance with OSHA standards, Georgia-Pacific conducted certain tests at its manufacturing facilities which are not relevant to this litigation. 32. For each test described in Interrogatory No. 3 1, please give the name of the 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to these objections, Georgia-Pacific states that to the best of its knowledge none of the plaintiffs in this cause have alleged exposure to any asbestos containing material at any facility owned or operated by Georgia-Pacific. However, in accordance with OSHA standards, Georgia-Pacific conducted certain tests at its manufacturing facilities which are not relevant to this litigation. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -44- 8/6/97 11:31am 33. Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name of the employee/official of the company receiving such advice. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific is unable to state when or how it first became aware of threshold limit values for asbestos dust or total dust recommended by the American Conference of Governments Industrial Hygienists. 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. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific manufactured a few products which contained small amounts of chrysotile asbestos. When Georgia-Pacific first heard information which suggested that there might be a potential health hazard to persons using products similar to this manufactured by Georgia-Pacific, it began a reformulation program which resulted in the elimination of asbestos from its asbestos containing products and/or removal of certain products from its product lines. Further, Georgia-Pacific, as a member of the Gypsum Association, received information from that Association's study of the nature and extent of exposure to asbestos by persons reasonably expected to be using such products. 34. Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state: Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221S01.WP -45- 8/6/97 11:31am (a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library; (c) The name(s) of the librarian(s) 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that this interrogatory is not limited in scope and/or time. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it formerly maintained a general library between 1969 and 1994. It was not set up as a medical or scientific library. 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 of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies. ANSWER: After reasonable search of its files, Georgia-Pacific states that it did not direct, sponsor, finance, participate in or receive the results of any tests and/or studies performed by the Saranac Laboratory during the time that it was involved in the manufacture of asbestoscontaining products. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -46- 8/6/97 11:31am 36. When was Defendant first aware of reports of studies of the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of Asbestos Workers" by A.J. Lanza, Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, Vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4, 1935 ("Lanza Report")? ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific is aware of the existence of this study, but is unable to state the specific date upon which it became aware of the study. 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: No. 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: No. 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. ANSWER: See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 30.2. 38. With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 37, please state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -47- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 30.2. Any documents responsive to this Interrogatory which are in Georgia-Pacific's possession will be made available to Plaintiffs' counsel for inspection at a mutually convenient time. 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 to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following: (a) The title of each such article; (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation of the reason for withholding any such article for printing; (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. Georgia-Pacific further objects on the basis that this interrogatory is not limited in scope and/or time. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it has not kept records concerning the periodicals to which it subscribed from 1950 through 1982. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -48- 8/6/97 11:31am 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. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific became a member of the Gypsum Association in 1965 and from that point forward, various persons attended annual and semi-annual meetings, as well as meetings and functions of various Association committees. Prior to the release of the products it manufactured, Georgia-Pacific had no information to suggest that any of its asbestos- containing products presented a health hazard. There was no information in the published medical or scientific literature to indicate a potential health hazard from any drywall finishing product until 1975. 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, packaging or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of the 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; (f) Whether any warning accompanied any of your asbestos-containing products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy of the warning and date said warning was issued; Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -49- 8/6/97 11:31am (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents; (I) The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared. ANSWER: It appears that Georgia-Pacific began using caution labels which were affixed to the containers of its asbestos-containing products in 1973 and discontinued labeling when asbestos was eliminated from its products, a process which was completed in 1977. Caution labels were worded in accordance with the recommendations of OSHA as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM Where appropriate, the following additional language appeared on the label: WHEN MIXING OR SANDING USE APPROVED RESPIRATOR or USE APPROVED RESPIRATOR WHEN SANDING. Labels measured approximately IV2" x 3Vi", 2" x 3V6", 1V2" x 9" and 2" x 5". Further detail can be obtained from a review of product packaging and brochures in Georgia-Pacific's possession which will be made available at a mutually convenient time. 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) The media used to disseminate the sales material. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.HP -50- 8/6/97 11:31am ANSWER: Sales and other business records pertaining to all products including the few which contained small amounts of asbestos have been maintained. They are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific law department. 43. Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 should be used of maintained by the 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 of the products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5. ANSWER: For each product manufactured by Georgia-Pacific which contained a small amount of asbestos, instructions on use of the product was printed on the packaging and brochures. The materials found in Georgia-Pacific's files are currently in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific law department. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -51- 8/6/97 ll:3lam the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. 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 bemused in place of asbestos; (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: No one product was ever identified which could be used in place of asbestos in the asbestos-containing products manufactured by Georgia-Pacific. When Georgia-Pacific received information which suggested a potential health hazard associated with the use of products used in the building construction industry, Georgia-Pacific immediately began an effort to eliminate asbestos from its products. As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific replaced asbestos in its products and ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. 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. If yes, please state: (a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication. (b) Name of person at the sites listed on Exhibit 1, attached hereto most knowledgeable about this communication. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -52- 8/6/97 11:31am (c) Dates of each communication. (d) Contents of each communication. ANSWER: See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 41. KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS INJURIES 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 claimants name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved; (b) The disease alleged in each such claim; (c) A brief summary ofthe disposition of each such claim; and (d) The name, address and job classification of the person or persons having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: Prior to 1970, no worker's compensation claims were filed against Georgia-Pacific alleging contraction of a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory may seek information protected by the investigative and attorney client privilege. Without waiving and subject to these objections, any documents responsive to this request are in the custody of the Georgia-Pacific law department. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -53- 8/6/97 11:31am 47.2 Has any person or company from which you purchased asbestos containing products ever issued a recall of their products or taken any action to take those products off the 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 of the recall. ANSWER: To the best of this Defendant's knowledge, no. 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: \ Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Georgia-Pacific objects to the use of the term "action" on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving its objection, Georgia-Pacific states that when it acquired information suggesting a possible health hazard associated with the use of some asbestos containing products, it began a program to eliminate asbestos from its products, place caution labels on the products in accordance with OSHA regulations and revise the caution label information as necessary. Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 41. 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 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; Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -54- 8/6/97 11:31am (c) state what written material exists related to such action; (d) state the names, job titles and last known address of the individuals who undertook such actions. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Georgia-Pacific objects to the use of the term "action" on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving its objection, Georgia-Pacific states that when it acquired information suggesting a possible health hazard associated with the use of some asbestos containing products, it began a program to eliminate asbestos from its products, place caution labels on the products in accordance with OSHA regulations and revise the caution label information as necessary. See Georgia-Pacific's response to Interrogatory No. 41. 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; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims; (0 The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. ANSWER: No. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -55- 8/6/97 11:31am 48.1 Describe the method by which you have maintained records concerning the manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery and/or installation or tearout 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.); (c) the inclusive dates of any such manufacturer, sale, supply, distribution, use, advertising, delivery, and/or installation or tear out 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 1930 to the present who is or was responsible for the collection and maintenance of such records. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege or is otherwise protected work product. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it was not sued for injuries allegedly caused by its products containing asbestos in their formulas until 1980, approximately 10 years after asbestos litigation began in the United States. After Georgia-Pacific became involved in asbestos litigation, it gathered and preserved all existing documents which might, in any way, concern asbestos. 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; Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -56- 8/6/97 11:31am (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. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege or is otherwise .protected work product. Without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific states that it was not sued for injuries allegedly caused by its products containing asbestos in their formulas until 1980, approximately 10 years after asbestos litigation began in the United States. After Georgia-Pacific became involved in asbestos litigation, it gathered and preserved all existing documents which might, in any way, concern asbestos. While Georgia-Pacific is not specifically aware of any documents discarded or destroyed prior to that time, to the extent that any records were discarded prior to that time, such was done pursuant to regular records retention policies and in the ordinary course of business. 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 format (i.e. database, word processing or other compu format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: (a) No (b) Not applicable Document: C;\ATL1\JBAN0221501.WP -57- 8/6/97 11:31am (c) Not applicable (d) Not applicable (e) 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 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 format (i.e. database, word processing or other computerized format)? (e) What manner of electronic format is used? ANSWER: % (a) No (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT 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, and job tide of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER: None at this time. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -58- 8/6/97 11:3lam 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. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and vague. In light of the number of plaintiffs involved in this lawsuit and the lack of information thus far available regarding such plaintiffs, Georgia-Pacific is unable at this time to give a meaningful response to this Interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Georgia-Pacific states that it has reason to believe that the claims of numerous Plaintiffs in this litigation are barred by misuse of the asbestos products under the laws of the State of Ohio. Georgia-Pacific will develop such defenses through the completion of t additional discovery and will supplement its response to this Interrogatory to the extent required by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 51. As to the sites listed on Exhibit A, and as to each Plaintiff/Decedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed or caused Plaintiff/Decedent's injuries. If your answer is yes, please state the following: (a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and vague. In light of the number of plaintiffs involved in this lawsuit and the lack of information thus far available regarding such plaintiffs, Georgia-Pacific is unable at this time to give a meaningful response to this Interrogatory. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -59- 8/6/97 11:31am RESPIRATORS 52. Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation of the 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; (c) The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Georgia-Pacific has not undertaken any tests of respirators or other breathing devices for the purposes of determining whether or not such devices would prevent inhalation of 100% of the asbestos dust and fibers given off or released from its products. Georgia-Pacific attached caution labels to its products which recommended the use of approved respirators when mixing or sanding. Georgia-Pacific has not, however, tested each respirator to determine whether or not such approved respirators prevent inhalation of 100% of the asbestos dust omitted from the use of any products nor does it believe that the removal of 100% of any asbestos dust is necessary to protect its user from potential disease or injury. 53. Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please state the following: Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -60- 8/6/97 11:31am (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 history 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. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific has not yet determined the identities of the persons whom it expects to call as expert witnesses at trial. Georgia-Pacific will supplement this interrogatory at the appropriate time. 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 of Defendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time of trial. ANSWER: None at this time. 55. Does Defendant admit that service of process was properly had on it in these cases? If not, please state why. ANSWER: Yes. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -61- 8/6/97 11:31am 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) the substance and subject matter of the anticipated testimony of each witness identified in the preceding response. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. 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: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Georgia-Pacific notes that it is uncertain as to its insurance coverage for the claims in this action and that issues relating to such coverage have not yet been fully resolved with this defendant's carriers. Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -62- 8/6/97 11:31am 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 of the 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; (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 of the above litigation by name, address and telephone number. ANSWER: Georgia-Pacific objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that the investigation and preparation of a response to this interrogatory would impose an undue burden and expense on Georgia-Pacific; and that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and oppressive. 57. Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit ANSWER: At this time, Georgia-Pacific is not aware of any person not heretofore mentioned having personal knowledge of the facts material to this case. Many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which these interrogatories relate are Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -63- 8/6/97 11:31am deceased or are otherwise unavailable to Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific is engaged in a continuing investigation with respect to the matters inquired into by these interrogatories. Georgia-Pacific will supplement interrogatory responses if and as any relevant information becomes known to us. 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: As of 1977, Georgia-Pacific ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and since that time has not engaged in any manufacture of such products. It is not possible for Georgia-Pacific to determine the precise date on which such products ceased to be sold, installed, or distributed. As To The Objections, Patricia A. Screen (0030760) Robert D. Anderle (0064582) PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR 1700 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 (216) 443-9000 Attorneys for Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -64- 8/6/97 11:31am CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The original of the foregoing Georgia-Pacific Corporation's Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories was served by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, this ieth 1ST day of August, 1997, upon: Steven D. Wolens, Esq. Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 3012 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, TX 75219 Bruce.Carter, Esq. Baron & Budd 43-B New Garver Road Monroe, OH 45050 CLEVELAND/0053873 01 One of the Attorneys for Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation Document: C:\ATL1\JBA\0221501.WP -65- 8/6/97 11:31am