Document EXMOYbZbQ6XdJrJvnMByO0DN

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA 3 PLAINTIFF'S (I EXHIBIT | EXX 92 GARY B. DAVIS, STEVEN D. DAVIS and CANDICE DAVIS HERNANDEZ VERSUS McCARTY CORPORATION, . ET'AL SUIT NO.: 354,810 DIVISION "I" RESPONSE TO `CONSOLIDATED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFFS Exxon Corporation ("Exxon") hereby responds to the Consolidated Requests For Admissions, Interrogatories and Requests For Production Of Documents Propounded By Plaintiffs as follows: GENERAL STATEMENT: Although plaintiffs' Consolidated Requests For Admissions, Interrogatories and Requests For Production Of Documents were propounded under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this matter has been remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court. Pursuant to agreement among counsel for Exxon and counsel for plaintiffs, response is timely being made under the applicable provisions of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. GENERAL OBJECTIONS: Exxon objects to these discovery requests in general because they are so overly broad that they could, if literally interpreted, invade the attorney/client and/or work product privilege. By way of example, but not limitation. Request for Admission 5.1 asks that Exxon admit that it "from 1930 to the present . . . distributed . . . letters, memoranda, or other documents . . . which contained any notes ... or other statements relative to the safe or proper handling of products containing asbestos ..." The language of this request would clearly extend to communications by Exxon with its counsel in preparation for the defense of this litigation. Therefore, EM002643 Exxon raises this objection to these discovery requests in order to preserve its attorney/client privilege *and/or work product privilege. , I. Definitions A. Exxon objects to plaintiffs' definition of "you," which plaintiffs define to include "ill other persons acting or purporting to act on {Exxon's] behalf" or "those entities with whom {Exxon has] become affiliated in any business capacity." These definitions are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and it is apparent that responding according to these definitions of "you" could require Exxon to answer for persons and entities over whom it has no control and for whom it is not responsible. Exxon therefore can respond to plaintiffs' Consolidated Requests only as to Exxon. D. Notice to Supplement Exxon will comply with the applicable provisions of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure in regard to its obligation to supplement its responses. RESPONSES AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 1.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit that you have used insulation material which contained asbestos at your refinery located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, between the years 1935 and 1980. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1.1: Exxon objects to this Request for Admission because the term "used" is not defined and therefore has no specific meaning in this context. Subject to the objection, and reserving all rights thereunder, Exxon admits that asbestos-containing insulation products have been present in Exxon's Baton Rouge refinery during the period 1935-1980. However, Exxon denies that it purchased and installed insulation containing asbestos during the entire time period set forth in Request 1.1. EH002644 1.2 INTERROGATORY; 1 If you admit the foregoing Request for Admission, please state without limitation: (a) the manufacturer and trade or brand name of each product used; (b) the dates inclusive that the products were used; (c) from whom the products were purchased; (d) a description of the composition of each product, including the type of asbestos contained in each such product, i._e._, amosite, .. chrysotile or crocidolite, and the quantitative percentage of each type of asbestos in each . product; (e) the dates and receipts of the shipments; (f) the use intended or contemplated for each product; (g) the names and addresses of insulation contractors who performed work in the Exxon . plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the dates of such employment. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 1.2: Exxon objects to Interrogatory 1.2 in its entirety as overly broad and burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence particularly because the Interrogatory requests responses "without limitation." Exxon objects to Part (d) of this Interrogatory as an overly burdensome interrogatory which requests information concerning the composition of products which Exxon has never manufactured, formulated, or marketed. Exxon objects to Part (f) of this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous and susceptible to various interpretations. Exxon cannot state the "use intended or contemplated for each product" by third parties. Without waiving these objections, Exxon will, pursuant to Article *1460, La. C.C.P., make available for inspection in its offices at 800 Bell Street, 3 E 02645 Houston, "Texas the records'in its possession regarding Exxon's purchases of insulation material containing asbestos for its Baton Rouge refinery between 1935 and 1980. Exxon does not represent that all of the . information reguested in Interrogatory 1.2 is contained in these business records. These records do, however, contain all of the responsive information which has been found in Exxon's possession to date after diligent search. 1.3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; Please produce all documents, tangible things and supporting documents or extracts thereof indicating or serving as a basis for the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1.3: See response to Interrogatory 1.2 above. 2.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; Admit that the use of products containing asbestos when used as intended caused risk or harm to those exposed to the dust generated. If you admit the foregoing, do you admit the exposure to the asbestos-containing dust can cause: (a) asbestosis; (b) mesothelioma; (c) lung cancer; (d) cancer of the digestive tract. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2.1; Exxon objects to this Request for Admission as ambiguous, vague, speculative, and. incapable of denial or affirmation. The phrases "use of products," "products containing asbestos," "when used as intended," "risk or harm," "exposed," "dust," "exposure," and "can cause" all require qualification and definition before they have any reasonably precise meaning in this context. Because of the compound nature of the Request for Admission, Exxon can neither admit nor deny the Request for Admission without having admitted certain assumptions which Exxon would otherwise deny. Exxon further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information which is not material in that Jesse Davis 4 EK002646 allegedly contracted mesothelioma. As such, information on asbestosis, lung cancer and cancer of the digestive tract are immaterial. 2.2 INTERROGATORY: If you admit the preceding request for admission, please state without limitation: (a) when and how you became aware that dust could cause such harm; (b) please state if any of your medical officers, hygienists, or other employees, or anyone acting on their behalf, ever made any reports, . recommendations and/or suggestions to anyone in your company pertaining to the existence of a relationship between asbestos exposure and disease. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2.2: Not applicable; see response to Request for Admission 2.1 above. 2.3 INTERROGATORY: If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state with respect to each recommendation, report or suggestion: (a) when each such recommendation. suggestion was made; report or (b) to whom each such recommendation, report or suggestion was made; (c) by whom each such recommendation, report or suggestion was made; (d) substance of each such recommendation, report or suggestion. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2.3: Not applicable; see response to Request for Admission 2.1 and response to Interrogatory 2.2 above. EM002647 5 2.4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: Please produce all documents, tangible ' things and supporting documents or extracts thereof indicating or serving as a basis for the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2.4: Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory 2.3 above. 3.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit you or any employee of your company or other group, association or entity authorized by you conducted tests or experiments with, or investigations or studies of, product's containing asbestos to determine: (a) the potential health hazards involving the use of such products; (b) the level of asbestos-containing dust or asbestos fiber concentrations in the are created when the product was made, handled, mixed, sawed, applied, used, installed, repaired, corrugated, sanded or torn out; (c) whether exposure to dust created by handling the use of the product would cause disease in human beings. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 3.1: Exxon objects to this Request for Admission as vague, ambiguous, speculative, overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of relevant evidence, and incapable of affirmation or denial as worded, particularly since there is no time frame or location specified and the phrases "products containing asbestos," "potential health hazards," "use of such products," "level of asbestos containing dust," "in the area," "exposure" and "cause" require qualification and definition before they denote any reasonably precise meaning in this context. Without waiving these objections, Exxon denies that every use of asbestos containing products creates dust and poses a potential health 6 E f'O 02648 hazard. Without waiving its objections, Exxon admits that it did investigate and Btudy literature and research conducted by others concerning asbestos from the standpoint of' industrial hygiene and occupational health, and did conduct testing of work environments and medical monitoring. Further, Exxon specifically objects to Request 3.1(c). vgcau.ge_.Ex2con do.es .not _ know what the phrase "handling the use of the product" means. To the extent not otherwise admitted or objected to, this Request is denied. 3.2 INTERROGATORY: '' If your answer to the preceding request for _ admission is in the affirmative, please state: (a) the date of each test or experiment; (b) by whom such tests or experiments were made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 3.2: See response to Request for Admission 3.1. Without waiving its objections, Exxon will, pursuant to Article 1460, La. C.C.P., make available for inspection at its offices at 800 Bell Street, Houston, Texas the materials in its possession relevant -to Exxon's medical monitoring program with respect to potential exposure to asbestos-containing insulation products and materials relevant to Exxon's testing of work environments at its Baton Rouge refinery during the period of time when Jesse Davis allegedly worked there. 3.3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: ' Please produce all documents, tangible things, or supporting documentation used in connection with your answer to the above interrogatory. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3.3: See responses to Request for Admission 3.1 and Interrogatory 3.2 above. 4.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit that you notified, instructed or recommended to asbestos insulation mechanics, applying asbestos insulation products and/or others working with oV in the vicinity of such products, specifically of the need to avoid breathing asbestos 7 EM002649 dust or dust, containing asbestos, or to wear respirators, masks or other protective devices or clothing when working with or in the vicinity of the application or remoVal of such insulation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 4.1: Exxon object... A.o...JO?'* for Admission as overly broad, ambiguous, and incapable of affirmation or denial as worded. Exxon can neither admit or deny this compound Request for Admission without admitting certain assumptions which Exxon" would otherwise deny. Exxon also objects to this Request for Admission as vague and speculative. For example, the terms "in the vicinity of such products" and "dust containing asbestos" require qualification or definition before they denote a reasonably precise meaning in this context. Without waiving its objections, Exxon denies that every application of asbestos insulation products creates dust and denies the premise that every application of asbestos insulation products creates a need for everyone "in the vicinity ... to wear respirators, masks or other protective devices or clothing." Further responding, Exxon admits that it promulgated a policy concerning use of protective equipment. Exxon will produce this policy in lieu of further response. To the extent not admitted or objected to, this Request for Admission is denied. 4.2 INTERROGATORY; If you admit the preceding request for admission, please state without limitation: (a) the dates and method of notification to: (1) those persons employed directly by you working with or in the vicinity of the installation or tear out of asbestos contained insulation; (2) each of your subcontractors or those persons installing insulation containing asbestos or rtemoving asbestos while employed by you; 8 EMO 0265 0 (3) those persons who would have contact with asbestos containing insulation through means other than installation or removal. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 4.2: Exxon objects to Interrogatory 4.2 as overly broad, burdensome, and seeking information which is not relevant and which is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Exxon specifically objects to Interrogatory 4.2(a)(3) because it is vague and ambiguous and does not apprise Exxon as to the identity of the class of persons inquired about. Further, Exxon did not "admit" the preceding, request and therefore no response is due. 4.3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: Please produce all documents, tangible things and supporting documents or extracts thereof indicating or serving as a basis for the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4.3: See responses to Request for Admission 4.1 and Interrogatory 4.2 above. 5.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit that you have from 1930 to the present published and/or distributed brochures, pamphlets, letters, memoranda, or other documents of any kind or character which contained any notes, warnings, instructions, cautions, directions, or other statements relative to the safe or proper handling of products containing asbestos which were used at your facility in Baton Rouge of the possible harmful effects of exposure to asbestos. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 5.1; Exxon objects to this Request for Admission as overly broad, both in subject matter and in time, and incapable of affirmation or denial as worded. Specifically, the phrase "of the possible harmful effects of exposure to asbestos" renders the entire , Request for Admission meaningless. Exxon also objects to this Request for Admission as vague and speculative, particularly since the terms "other 9 EK002651 statements," '.'safe or proper handling of products containing asbestos," "used at your facility in Baton Rouge," "possible harmful effects" and "exposure" are terms which require qualification or definition before they can denote a . reasonably precise meaning in this context. k 2 T xrrFppnr;arrnr?v. ...... If you admit the foregoing, please identify: (a) the date thereof; v (b) the author thereof. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 5.2: See response to Request for Admission 5.1 above. 5,3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: '' Produce all documents and tangible things which _ evidence the result of such research or investigation, including supporting documentation relative to such assertions. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5.3: See responses to Request for Admission 5.1 and Interrogatory 5.2 above. 6.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit that manufacturers of asbestos products or other persons have furnished you with information, including but not limited to, results of research, tests, medical studies or experiments as to the state of the medical knowledge relating to the connection between asbestos exposure and disease. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 6.1: Exxon objects to this Request for Admission as overly broad and not limited in time nor limited to the disease allegedly suffered by Jesse Davis. Exxon also objects to this Request for. Admission as vague inasmuch as the terms "or other persons," "information," "exposure," and "disease" require qualification and definition before they denote any reasonably precise meaning in this context. Without waiving its objections, Exxon admits that it has received information concerning a potential relationship between exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma. Exxon will produce this 10 EMO 02 65 2 information in lieu of further response. To the extent not answered or objected to, this Request is denied. ' 6 2 INTERROGATORY;................ .................. If the answer to the foregoing request for admission is in the affirmative, please state: " (a) what information were you furnished; (b) when you "Were furnished such information; (c) the identity of the person who furnished you the information. ' RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 6.2: Exxon objects to Interrogatory 6.2 for the same reason it objected to Request 6.1. Exxon will produce the documents identified in response to Request 6.1 in lieu of further response. ' 6.3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: Please produce all documents, tangible things and supporting documents or extracts thereof indicating or serving as a basis for the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6.3: Not applicable; see responses to Request for Admission 6.1 and Interrogatory 6.2 above. 7.1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit that you have provided other petrochemical processors with information resulting from experiments or knowledge obtained by you relative to the dangers of asbestos exposure. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 7.1: Exxon objects to this Request for Admission as overly broad in both substance and time, ambiguous, speculative and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant discovery. Exxon also objects to this Request for Admission as vague inasmuch as the terms "provided," "information," "knowledge," "dangers," and "exposure" require qualification and definition before they denote a reasonably precise meaning 11 EK002653 in this context. Without waiving its objections, Exxon denies that every "asbestos exposure" poses "dangers"; however, Exxon admits it has shared information concerning asbestos with the public, including the representatives of other petrochemical processors, labor unions, and federal and state government, and F.vxon will, pursuant to Article 1460, La. C.C.P., make available documents relevant tp that sharing of information for inspection at its offices at 800 Bell Street, Houston, Texas. 7.2 INTERROGATORY; ' If you admit the foregoing, please provide the following: ' (a) what information you furnished; (b) when you furnished such information; (c) the identity of the person to whom you furnished such information. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 7.2: See response to Request for Admission 7.1 above. 7.3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: Please produce all documents, tangible things and supporting documents or extracts thereof indicating or serving as a basis for the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7.3: See responses to Request for Admission 7.1 and Interrogatory 7.2. 8.1 INTERROGATORY: Please identify each individual who you will or may call as an expert witness to give opinion testimony and with respect to each state the following: (a) the field in which he or she is to be offered as an expert; (b) the substance of the facts to which he or she is expected to testify; (c) the substance of the opinions which he or she is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for such opinions; 12 E PO 02 654 * (d) a summary of his or her qualifications within the field he or she'is expected to testify; (e) the identification of all prior testimony of which Louisiana, national and regional counsel are aware. ' RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 8.1: Exxon has not yet determined which experts it will call. 9.1 INTERROGATORY; . Please identify all persons whom you have retained or employed in anticipation of litigation or for trial' preparation purposes whom you do not expect to call as a witness at trial, or about whom no decision has been made to call as a witness. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 9.1; None. 10.1 INTERROGATORY; Please state every fact as distinguished from conclusionary allegations upon which you rely to support each of your following contentions: (a) that plaintiff's injuries were caused solely and entirely by his own negligence; (b) that plaintiff was contributorily and/or comparatively negligent; (c) that the injuries resulted from risks, dangers and hazards, all .of which were plainly observable, open, obvious and well-known to the plaintiff on or before the time of the alleged injuries; (d) that the injuries of plaintiff were caused or occasioned by the fault, negligence and/or strict liability of parties for whom you are not legally responsible. 13 EM002655 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 10.1: Exxon is in the process of investigating plaintiffs' claim and will furnish this information when it is available. Submitted by: Charles S. McCowan, Jr.(#9167) Gary A. Bezet (#3036) KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D'ARMOND, McCOWAN & JARMAN Post Office Box 3513 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Telephone: (504) 387-0999 David W. Ledyard STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON BISSELL 1400 San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans Beaumont, TX77701-3235 Telephone: (409) 835-4581 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, to all counsel of record. a. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 1990. Gary A. Bezet f EM002656 14 10-'29-'90 07:54 EXXON HQ - LITIP^TION 001 VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS S S S ' BEFORE ME, undersigned Notary, personally cane and appeared: .aJtsQ'ihauni who, being by me first duly sworn, did depose and state that he is the Attorney for Exxon Corporation and the he has read --the foregoing response to consolidated requests for admissions, interrogatories and request for production of documents and that they are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, this W*' day of October, 1990. My Commission Expires: 07/3/f93 E PO 02657