Document eKxxMj5XYXEaQ3YD9OZwXj94
FILE NAME: Welding (WELD)
DATE: 1993
DOC#: WELD025
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Hobart Brothers Answers to Interrogatories
ROBERT JACOBS THOMAS C. CRUMPLAR + MARLA ROSOFF ESKIN 0 ELIZABETH BAR N ES LEWIS +<> V IN C E N T J .X . H ED R IC K , II
* ALSO ADMITTED U. S. PATENT OFFICE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR
+ ALSO ADMITTED NEW JERSEY ^ ALSO ADMITTED PENNSYLVANIA BAR
J a c o bs & C r u m pla r , P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2 EAST 7th STREET P. O. BOX 1271
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
(302) 656-54-45
May 1, 1997
FAX (302) 656-5875
tut. (t
j
^
Barry Castleman, Sc.D.
2412 Pickwick Road
Baltimore, MD 21207-6631
.s
Re: Leiahtv Trial Group
Dear Dr. Castleman:
Please find enclosed copies of interrogatory answers of Lincoln Electric, Airco, Hobart Brothers and Westinghouse Electric.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
7
Vincent J. X. Hedrick, II .7/
y i `- LX- -crn.
3
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
) C.A. No. 77C-ASB-2
HOBART BROTHERS COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DIRECTED TO ALL DEFENDANTS
A. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
At one time, Hobart Brothers Company (sometimes referred to hereinafter as "Hobart") manufactured and sold certain welding electrodes which contained a form of asbestos in the covering of the electrodes. Such form of asbestos was encapsulated by a silicate binder and was eventually completely destroyed by the heat of the welding arc. Since there was never any release of respirable asbestos fibers into the environment of the user of any such rods or any bystander, Hobart has not considered that it either manufactured or sold any asbestos-containing products and it certainly has never considered itself part of the "asbestos product industry".. Plaintiffs' use of the term "asbestos-containing product" incorporates an assumed release of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers in the use of a product. Hobart denies that such release occurred in the use of any of its welding rods and objects to the presumptive nature of the use of the term "asbestos-containing product" throughout this set of interrogatories.
Further objection to this discovery is made because not a single Plaintiff in this entire litigation has yet to clearly and specifically allege that a specific Hobart Brothers Company welding rod containing asbestos was ever used. Hobart manufactured a wide variety of welding rods over the years and only some of Hobart's welding rods contained a small amount of encapsulated asbestos in the covering. This blanket discovery is unduly burdensome and expensive for a company such as Hobart which did not manufacture or sell what is typically referred to in this litigation as "asbestos-containing products". Plaintiffs should be required to specifically identify which, if any, of Hobart's welding rods were used. Only then can Hobart Brothers Company determine whether the Plaintiff has identified a welding rod which contained asbestos fibers encapsulated in its coating and that, therefore, Hobart should provide further responses to this discovery.
Hobart also objects to this discovery because it is not sufficiently specific as to time of alleged exposure. Requiring Hobart to respond for the period 1936 to present is unduly burdensome and expensive when there has not been any showing that any Plaintiff was exposed at anytime to any welding rod manufactured by Hobart Brothers Company which may have contained a small amount of asbestos encapsulated in the covering of the rod.
Hobart objects to being put to the burden and expense involved in responding to this discovery until such time as each and every Plaintiff has not only identified the specific welding rods to which exposure is alleged, but has also established the period of time when the alleged exposure occurred. Only then can Hobart
reasonably determine what information is relevant to a particular Plaintiff's case. The expanse of information sought by Plaintiffs is not relevant to the subject matter involving Hobart in the pending action, will not be admissible at trial, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Hobart further objects to this discovery to the extent that it requires Hobart to produce, furnish, or disclose information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and/or the general protection afforded to mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Hobart's attorneys and/or representatives of Hobart concerning this litigation.
It appearing that Hobart has been made a party in this action as a result of allegations that Plaintiffs either used or were exposed to certain welding rods containing encapsulated asbestos fibers in the coating of the rods which were manufactured or sold by Hobart, Hobart objects to interrogatories requesting information regarding any other products manufactured or sold on the grounds that such information is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and for the reason that such discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.
Hobart objects to this discovery to the extent that it seeks or may be deemed to seek information, materials, or documents that are commercially confidential and/or constitute trade secrets.
Without waiving any of the above-noted objections, in good-faith compliance with Standing Order Number 1. and the Superior Court Civil Rules, Hobart responds to this discovery as set forth
below. Hobart does not concede that any of its answers to these interrogatories and requests are or will be admissible evidence at a trial in this action and Hobart does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, to the use of any such answer at trial. Hobart's investigation into these interrogatories is continuing and, therefore, Hobart reserves the right to supplement or revise its responses if additional information is discovered or becomes available. Each response to the following interrogatories should be understood to incorporate, without further reference, each of the objections stated above. The statement of any information in response to any interrogatory is not intended nor should it be interpreted to be a waiver of any objection stated herein.
B. RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
1.
Describe in detail, with specificity and particularity each
product mined, produced, manufactured or sold by the answering
defendant or its predecessors in title or subsidiaries which
contained asbestos for each year from 1936 until 1980; and for each
such product describe:
(a) Its chemical ingredients;
(b) State the manner in which it was intended to be used,
i.e., in the construction and/or insulation of buildings and/or
equipment, etc.;
(c) For each ingredient contained therein state:
(i)
The name or chemical composition of
substance, what harmful effects, if any are known, that it produces
in man or mammals and whether it produces its harmful effects through
ingestion, inhalation, absorption or a combination of these;
(ii) When you determined and/or learned that the
substance produced harmful effects and how such effects were
produced;
(iii) Identify each individual who participated in
such determination and/or obtained such knowledge;
(iv) Identify each document that refers, reflects or
relates to any information pertaining to the properties of each of
the ingredients and/or how the harmful effects are produced as well
as your determination of those toxic effects and the manner by which
they are produced;
(v) As to any information received orally in answer
to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied;
(vi) Which products or ingredients were mined, which
were manufactured and which were distributed by answering defendants.
ANSWER:
1. This company from 1939 to 1981 manufactured and sold
electrodes which contained chrysotile, a form of asbestos, which was
encapsulated in the rod and consumed in the arc. Because there was
no release to the environment of users, this company does not
consider that it either manufactured or sold "asbestos containing
products." A continuing objection to this term is made for all
interrogatories containing it.
(a)
See Exhibit "A" which contains percentages of asbesto
for the products manufactured and containing asbestos. Objection is
made to furnishing proprietary and trade secret information until
plaintiffs identify which, if any of the products allegedly used and
until a proper protective order can be entered so that this
information is not released to competitors or codefendants.
(b) Welding of metals.
{c ) Objection. Overbroad and burdensome. Without waiving
the objection, Hobart welding rods as manufactured and sold presented
no hazards from asbestos. Objection is also made to producing
research, literature surveys, and compilations of materials requested
in this interrogatory which are in the public domain and are as
equally available to plaintiff as to this Defendant.
2.
If any product identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1
and was produced, manufactured and/or sold under a trade name,
identify that trade name(s) and state the time period that each such
product was sold under such trade name.
ANSWER:
2. See Exhibit "A". 3. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory No.
1 , state: (a)
The address of each plant where it was manufactured,
processed or packaged; (b) Whether you were the sole producer, manufacturer
and/or distributor of the product and, if not: . (i) The name and address of each other person, firm
or other entity engaged in the production, manufacture and/or
distribution of the product; (ii) Whether any other manufacturer produced the
product by virtue of a franchise or license from you;
(iii) The persons or firms who produced the product
for distribution the United States;
(iv) The persons or firms who produced the product
for distribution in the State of Delaware.
ANSWER:
3.
(a) Hobart Brothers Company, Troy, Ohio.
(b) Defendant produced and manufactured all listed
products. Distribution occurred through distributors as well as
Defendant.
(i) Objection is made to producing a nationwide
compilation of distributors from 1939 to 1981. This request is
overbroad and burdensome and is not calculated to lead to the
production of relevant evidence. If plaintiffs will identify from
whom the product or products in question were purchased, Defendant
will hasten to supply any relevant or existing records regarding that
distributor.
(ii) No.
(iii) Hobart Brothers Company.
(iv) Hobart Brothers Company
4.
For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1
state:
(a) How the product was sold and/or distributed for use in
the United States and/or the State of Delaware.
(b) Identify all persons, firms or other entities to whom these products were sold or through whom they were distributed during
the period 1936 to 1980;
(c) For each such person, firm or other entity identified
in answer to subpart (b) above, state the following:
distributed;
(1 ) the specific product sold and/or distributed; (2 ) the quantity of the product sold and/or
(3) the dates which these products were sold, shipped
and delivered to each entity;
(d) Identify each individual who has any knowledge of
these sales and/or distribution and state with specificity and
particularity the substance of each individual's knowledge;
(e)
Identify and produce all documents which refer,
reflect or relate to all sales and/or distribution of each such
product to each such entity identified above.
ANSWER:
4.
(a) Direct sales and distributors.
(b) See Answer to Interrogatory 3(b)(i).
(c) - (e) Defendant has no knowledge of the majority of
sales made by distributors. Sales records of direct sales are not
in existence for this period.
5. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1
state whether you engaged in any advertising program to promote the
sale of that product and, if so state:
(a) The name or description of each advertising media that
you have used to promote the product during the period 1936 to 1980; (b) The name of each national magazine or periodical in
which you have advertised the product during the period 1936 through
1980.
(c) The date of each issue of such magazine or periodical in which such advertisement appeared;
(d) The name and address of each newspaper in which it advertised the product during the period 1936 through 1980;
(e) The date of each publication of each newspaper in which the advertisement appeared;
(f) Identify and produce each document which refers, reflects or pertains to each such advertisement which was published in each such magazine, periodical and/or newspaper;
(g) State whether the advertising of the product was handled by an agency and, if so, state the name and address of each advertising agency that handled any portion of the advertising of the product during the period 1936 through 1980. ANSWER:
5. (a) No specific promotion of asbestos-containing products
was ever carried out. (b) - (g) Not applicable.
6 . For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 which was distributed to a company that used said products in Delaware or was a distributor of said products for an area including Delaware, state:
(a) The name and address of the company; (b) Whether the asbestos contained was tremolite, crodolite, crysotile, amosite and/or anthophyllite asbestos and state the amo u n t in terms or the p e r c e n t a g e of the total asbestos contained in the product.
(c) The total amount of asbestos contained in the product;
(d) The exact formulation of the product including the
other non-asbestos ingredients thereof;
(e) The name and address of each individual who
participated in the formulation of such product;
(f) The identity of each document which refers, reflects
or relates to any information provided in the answer to this
interrogatory;
(g) The names and addresses of the persons usually
communicated with when dealing with said company;
(h) Identify the living individual most knowledgeable
about the answers given above in 6 (b), (c) and (d);
(i) Identify the living individual most knowledgeable
about distribution of the above products in Delaware and in an area
of which Delaware was a part.
ANSWER:
6.
(a) - (i) Objection is made to these interrogatories as
redundant, overbroad, requiring a compilation, not relevant or
calculated to lead to relevant evidence, and as requiring the
disclosure of proprietary information which will damage Defendant-
competitively. While reserving all objections, if plaintiffs reveal
those persons or entities from whom the products at issue were
purchased, as well as the identity of the specific products allegedly
used, Defendant will attempt to supply information which is in
existence and which has not been previously supplied in these
interrogatories.
7.
With regard to each form of asbestos fibers identified in
the answer to Interrogatory 6 , state:
(a) Where it was purchased, if it was not purchased, where
it was obtained;
(b) From whom it was purchased
(c) The manner in which it was received, stored and used
in the production of the product.
ANSWER:
7. (a)-(b) The only information remaining from Defendant's
records is that International Fiber Co. and Johns-Manville Asbestos
were vendors from 1952-1981.
(c) Asbestos was encapsulated in the electrode coating. 8 . If you manufacture any insulation products which are commonly used by insulators and which contain asbestos;
(a) describe how the products listed in (b) are cut,
shaped, mixed and applied on the jobs giving particular reference as
to whether or not the materials have to be sawed or cut on the job,
blown into confined areas, or mixed with water into a cement or
paste;
(b) State if there is any way known to you that the
products listed below can be used and applied without the worker
inhaling any of the asbestos dust or fibers:
(1) Asbestos cement; Asbestos finishes;
(2) Asbestos pipe covering;
(3) Asbestos bricks or block;
(4) A s b e s t o s sheeting;
(5) Asbestos insulation used to cover extremes of
heat as well as cold;
(6 ) Asbestos insulation in loose form which may be
blown into homes or buildings;
(7) Asbestos in spray form;
form;
(8 ) Asbestos mineral in fiber form or particulate
(9) Asbestos Millboard, rope, gaskets, paper gloves
or blanket.
(c) Did your company buy any products listed in (b) above
from other manufacturers and re-label it or have it labeled for your
company?
(1) If yes, which products and from whom.
(d) Did your company produce any products within the list
in (b) above for other companies?
(e) Whether prior to distributing the product you altered
it in any manner form the form in which you received it from the
source, and if so what type of alterations or modifications were made
by you;
(f) Whether prior to distributing the product you
re-packaged or in any way altered the packaging or labelling of the
product after receiving it form the source, and if so what
alterations were made by you.
ANSWER:
8 . Not applicable. 9. For each product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 1,
describe each end use for which each such product was intended to be
used by the general industry and for each such use:
(a) Describe the form of the product when so used;
(b) Describe the process and/or method by which the product would be applied for each such use;
(c) Describe the equipment to be used to apply the product for each such use;
(d) Identify each document that refers, reflects or relates to any information and state the full substance of the information supplied;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to any interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
9. (a) Welding rods (b) Welding
^ (c) Power source (d) Objection. Vague, overbroad, incomprehensible, and not
capable of being answered. (e) Objection. Vague, overbroad, incomprehensible, and not
capable of being answered. 10. State whether any of the equipment identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(c) was manufactured by you or any parent or subsidiary company or related company. ANSWER:
10. Objection. Irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the objection, Defendant is a manufacturer of power sources.
11. If any piece of equipment identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9(c) was invented, developed or first made by you
or any person associated with you or any related company or
association, state:
(a) When it was invented, developed or made;
(b) The identity of each individual who participated
therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(c) The identity of each document which reflects, refers
or relates to any information set forth in answer to this
interrogatory;
(d) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
\J 1 1 .
Objection.
Irrelevant, not calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant evidence, unduly burdensome, and overbroad.
12.
State whether you or any person associated with you or any
related company or association invented, developed or made any change
and/or improvement in any piece of equipment identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(c), and if so:
(a) Describe the change and/or improvement made;
(b) State when it was made;
(c) Identify each individual who participated herein and
describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who has suppled such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
12. See Interrogatory No. 11.
13. For each process and/or method identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(b), state whether it was developed by you or a
parent or subsidiary or related company.
ANSWER:
13. Hobart Brothers Company did not develop or invent the
process of joining metals by high temperatur fusion.
14. For each process and/or method identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(b) developed or first made by you or any person
associated with you or any related company or association, state:
(a) When and where it was developed;
{b ) The identity of each individual who participated
therein and describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(c) The identity of each document which reflects, refers
or related to any information set forth in answer to this
Interrogatory;
(d) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
~~
14. Not applicable. See Interrogatory No. 13.
15. State whether you or any person associated with you or any
related company or association developed or made any change and/or
improvement in any process and/or method identified in answer to
interrogatory No. 9(b), and if so:
(a) Describe the change and/or improvement made;
(b) State when and where it was made;
(c) Identify each individual who participated therein and
describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory.
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied;
(f) Identify the living person who has the most knowledge
of matters discussed herein.
ANS/WER: 15.
Objection. Overbroad, burdensome, not relevant or
calculated to lead to relevant evidence. To provide decades of
history on. the development of welding equipment and the welding
process would be unduly burdensome.
16.
For each product identified in the answer to interrogatory
No. 1, describe what, if any, tests were made to determine the safety
of said product and:
(a) State when and where each such test was made;
(b) Describe the results of each such-test;
(c) Identify each individual who participated therein and
describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
^ 16. Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Hobart believes that use
of its welding rods did not release respirable asbestos fibers and
no asbestos-related disease could, therefore, result from such use.
Accordingly, no testing in this regard was necessary.
(a) - (e) Not applicable.
17.
For each process or method identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(b), describe what, if any, tests were made to
determine the safety of said process or method and:
(a) State when and where each such test was made;
(b) Describe the result of each such test;
(c) Identify each individual who participated therein and
describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANWER:
17. Objection. Irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidencT Without waiving the objection, see
Answer to Interrogatory No. 16, above.
18. For each piece of equipment identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(c), describe what, if any tests were made to
determine the safety of said equipment and:
(a) State when and where each such test was made;
(b) Describe the results of each such test;
(c) Identify each individual who participated therein and
describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
18. Objection due to relevance and the burdensomeness of
compiling decades of product history on machines unrelated to this
litigation.
19. For each label, brochure, or other written material
describing or relating to the use of each product identified in
answer to Interrogatory No. 1, produced by you or any person
associated /With you or any related company or association;
\J {a) Describe its contents;
State when, where, how, and to whom it was
distributed;
^ / i c ) State the manner in which it was placed on or in the
product container or whether it was separate from the product
container, or whether it was separate from the product or container;
(d)
State whether any written, printed or graphic ma
was present to warn of any harmful ingredient it might contain. If
so, state:
(i)
Whether a signal word, i.e. "danger",
or "caution" was present;
{ii) Whether the signal word was printed in boldface,
capital letters or different colored inks. Which?
(iii) The wording of the statement describing any
hazard;
(iv ) The wording of all directions and/or
instructions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard.
(e) Identify each individual who participated in the
writing of,, the label, brochure or other written materials and
describe/in detail the extent of his participation;
(f) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to the information contained on the labels, brochures, or
other written materials and/or the decision to include such
informt!on;
3 ) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
19. (a)-(g) Not applicable. None of the warnings or
literature of Hobart welding rods warned against dangers of
asbestosis, asbestos related pleural disease, or any other possible
asbestos caused disease since there were no such dangers to users.
20.
For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory No.
1 state whether warnings of any harmful or potentially harmful
effects of the product were printed on the cartons or packing cases
in which individual containers were packed and, if so:
(a) State the printed warnings contents;
(b) State when the warning was used;
(c) Describe the manner in which it was placed on or in
the product container;
(d) Identify each individual who participated in writing of the label or brochure and describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained on the cartons or packing cases and the decision to include that information;
(f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
20. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 19. 21. For each label, brochure, or other written material describing or relating to each process or method identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 9(b) produced by you or any person associated with you or any related company or association; and for each such label, brochure or written material:
(a) Describe its contents; (b) State when, where, how, and to whom it was distributed ; (c) State whether any written, printed or graphic matter was present to warn of any harmful ingredient it might contain. If so, state:
(i) Whether a signal word, i.e. "danger", "warning" or "caution" was present;
(ii) Whether the signal word was printed in boldface, capital letters or different colored inks, and if so, which one;
(iii) The wording of the statements describing any hazard;
(iv)
The wording of all directions
instructions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard.
(d) Identify each individual who participated in the
writing of the label, brochure or other written materials and
describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to the information contained on the labels, brochures, or
other written materials and/or the decision to include such
information;
(f) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied information and
state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
21. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
22. For each label, brochure, or other written material
describing or relating to equipment identified in answer to
Interrogatory No. 9(c), produced by you or any person associated
with you or any related company or association; and for each such
label, brochure or written material;
(a) Describe its contents;
(b) State when, where, how, and ~T;o whom ' it was
distributed;
(c) State whether any written, printed or graphic matter
was present to warn of any harmful ingredient it might contain. If
so, state:
(i) Whether a signal word, i.e. "danger", "warning"
or "caution" was present;
(ii) Whether the signal word was printed in boldface, capital letters or different colored inks, and if so, which one;'
(iii) The wording of the statements describing any hazard;
(iv) The wording of all directions and/or instructions pertaining to any method of use to avoid any hazard.
(d) The identity of each individual who participated in the writing of the label, brochure or other written materials and describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(e) The identity of eachdocument which reflects, refers or relates to the information contained on the labels, brochures, or other written materials and/or the decision to include such information;
(f) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
22. Objection. This interrogatory requests information regarding equipment used in connection with welding rods. In Interrogatory 9(c) we identified such equipment-as a power source. Labels and the like appearing on the power source are not relevant to this litigation and the information sought in this interrogatory is not likely to lead to relevant information.
23. With regard to the production, distribution, and/or sale of each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 state whether you have ever been accused of violating any of the provisions of the Federal Labeling of Hazardous Substances Act, and, if so, state:
(a) The date of each indictment, complaint or information that accused you of such violation;
(b) The court in which the proceedings were instituted; (c) The plea you entered; (d) The verdict and/or judgment in each such case; (e) The date set for trial of any pending case; (f) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to information pertaining to such accusation; (g) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER: 23. No. 24. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, state whether you contend it is a "hazardous.substance" as defined in 15 United States Code, Section 1261(f) and, if so, state with specificity and particularity the facts which you rely on to support that contention. ANSWER: 24. No. 25. With regard to each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 state whether any quantity of that product has ever been seized by any agency of any government; and if so: (a) State the date of each such occurrence; (b) State the name or description of the violations of which you were accused; (c) State the court in which the action was filed;
(d) Describe the judgment that was rendered; (e) State the date that has been set for trial of any pending case; (f) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to information pertaining to such seizure; (g) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER: 25. No. 26. State whether you have ever been the subject of any investigation or accusation by any Governmental Agency concerning the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91596, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). If so state: (a) The date of such investigation, accusation, or other administrative or judicial procedure or action; (b) The administrative agency or court in which any proceedings arising from such investigation or accusation were heard or instituted; (c) The determination and results of any such accusation or action; (d) The identity of each document which refers or relates to information set forth in answer to this interrogatory; (e) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the 'information supplied. ANSWER:
26. Objection. Irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objection, no OSHA investigations regarding asbestos harm to users of welding rods were conducted.
27. State what action, if any, you have taken since 1935 to reduce or eliminate any risk of occupational disease or personal injury to those engaged in the manufacture of your asbestos products or to those using your asbestos products which arises from the inhalation of dust and fibers. ANSWER:
27. Objection as to those involved in manufacturing. Without waiving said objection, asbestos was removed from the product. With respect to users, Hobart believes that there was no risk as outlined in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 16.
28. Describe in full and complete detail each of the activities which you have undertaken with the intention of warning the public of the effects or any product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 as to the health of the user or general public and give the inclusive dates of each such activity, and:
(a) Identify each individual who participated therein and describe the nature of his participation;
(b) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to information pertaining to such warning;
(c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
35.
Have you or anyone on your behalf conducted or had
conducted any investigation of the statistical and/or epidemiological
relationship between the use of any product identified in answer to
Interrogatory 1 and the contraction by humans of pulmonary
asbestosis. If so:
(a)
Identify each person participating in such
investigation and describe in detail the extent of his participation;
(b) State when the investigation was conducted;
(c) Identify the person or persons who authorized the
investigation ;
(d) Identify each document which refers or relates to any
information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
35. No.
36. Describe in detail all written and oral reports including
those reports originating from users of any of the products
identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, including doctors, and
employees and agents of the defendants concerning any relationship
between the use of these products and the development of pulmonary
asbestosis in humans or animals;
(a) Identify all persons making said reports and to whom
said reports were made;
(b) State whether any report or' series of reports
initiated changes and/or rvaluation of the production, sale or use,
or recommendations for use, of any of those products;
(c) Identify each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
36. None. 37. Describe in detail all written and oral reports including those reports originating from users of any of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory 1, including doctors, employees and agents of the defendants concerning any development of cancer including but not limited to mesothelioma in humans or animals;
(a) Identify all persons making said reports and to whom said reports were made;
(b) State whether any report or series of reports initiated changes and/or rvaluation of the production, sale or use, or recommendations for use, of any of those products;
(c) Identify each document which refers or relates to any information set forth in answer to this interrogatory;
(d) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
37. None. 38. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 state whether the production and/or sale of the product has been discontinued and, if so:
(a) State when it was discontinued;
(b) State with specificity and particularity all the
reasons for the discontinuance.
(c) Identify each individual who participated in the
decision to discontinue production and/or sale and describe in detail
the extent of his participation;
(d) Identify all documents which reflect, refer or relate
to each such discontinuance;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
38. (a) See Exhibit B.
(b) To eliminate potential hazard to employees mixing the
material.
/
(c) R. Terry Lefever. (<n~-- See~Exhibi-t-- C .
w
(e) No information was received orally.
39. For each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1,
state whether the production and/or sale of that product has been
limited and/or curtailed or reduced and, if so:
(a) Describe how it was so limited or curtailed or
reduced; (b) State when it was so limited, curtailed or reduced;
(c) State with specificity and particularity all of the
reasons for the limitation, curtailment, or reduction;
(d) Identify each individual who participated and the
extent of his participation in the decision to so limit, curtail or
reduce production and/or sale;
(e) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to the limitation, curtailment or reduction and/or the
decision to implement the limitation, curtailment or reduction;
(f) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
39. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 38.
40. Do you contend that each of the products identified in
Interrogatory 1 do not or did not create any risk to one who applies
or uses the product?
(a) If so, state the factual basis for each such
contention;
(b) If not, state:
(i) The degree and kind of risk which is created by
such use;
(ii)
The conditions under which such risk is
increased or decreased;
(iii)
Identify each document which reflects, re
relates to your answers to this interrogatory;
(iv)
As to any information received orally in
to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER: 40. Yes. Asbestos which at one time was used in the flux of
this defendant's welding rods was encapsulated in such a manner so as to render the asbestos non-respirable. In addition, during normal and anticipated use of the welding rod, the heat of the welding arc would destroy the encapsulated asbestos so that it could not be inhaled.
41. Do you contend that it was not your responsibility to warn workers of the risk of harm arising from the use of you product or of the danger of asbestos to their health?
(a) State the factual basis for such response; (b) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relates to your answers to this interrogatory; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER: 41. As there was no asbestos risk or danger to end users, there was no responsibility to warn. 42. Do you contend that it was only the responsibility of the employing company involved, or others, to so warn the workers or the risk of harm arising from the use of your product or of the danger of asbestos to their health? (a) State the basis for such contention; (b) Identify which others were so responsible; (c) Identify each document which reflects, refers or relate to you answer to this interrogatory;
(d)
As to any information received orally in answer
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
42. Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 and
Answer to Interrogatory No. 41.
43. Do you contend that the danger to any plaintiff was not
foreseeable at the time the products alleged to have caused his
injuries were sold? If so, as to each plaintiff:
(a) State the factual basis for such contention;
(b) Identify each document relied upon in support of such
contention ;
(c) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
43. There was no danger to be foreseen. See Answer to
Interrogatory No. 1 and Answer to Interrogatory No. 41.
44. Do you contend that the danger from the use by plaintiffs
of products containing asbestos was obvious? If so, as to each
plaintiff :
(a) State the factual basis for such contention;
(b) Identify all documents relied upon in support of such
contention;
(c) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER: 44. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 43. 45. Do you contend that plaintiffs knew, understood and
appreciated the danger arising from their contact with asbestos which you mined or distributed or products containing asbestos which you manufactured or distributed? If so, as to each plaintiff:
(a) State the factual basis for such contention; (b) Identify each document relied upon in support of such contention; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER: 45. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 43. 46. Do you contend that plaintiffs voluntarily and unreasonably exposed themselves to the danger arising from their contact with asbestos which you mined or distributed or products containing asbestos which you manufactured or distributed? If so, as to each plaintiff: (a) State the factual basis for such contention; (b) Identify each document relied upon in support of such contention; (c) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER: 46. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 43. 47. Do you contend that plaintiffs used any asbestos which you
mined or distributed or any products containing asbestos which you manufactured or distributed in other than their usual, customary and expected manner? If so, as to each plaintiff:
(a) State the name and chemical composition of the product claimed to have been used in other than its usual, customary and expected manner;
(b) State in detail the manner in which plaintiffs used said product in other than its usual, customary and expected manner;
(c) Identify each document relied upon in support of such contention;
(d.) As to any information received orally in answer to this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance of the information supplied. ANSWER:
47. Hobart did not mine or distribute asbestos and presently has no specific information on how plaintiffs' may have used any welding rods manufactured or distributed by Hobart.
48. With regard to each product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8, state whether you have ever been named as a defendant in any other civil action, including Workmen's Compensation Actions, filing of Workmen's Compensation consent agreements, or other proceedings, to recover damages for injuries resulting from asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease received as a result of using that product and, if so, for each proceeding;
49.
With regard to each product identified in answer to
Interrogatory 1 or 8, state whether you have ever received a notice
of injury to any other person as a consequence of a condition of
asbestosis, asbestos related pleural disease and cancer resulting
from the use of that product and, if so:
(a) State the date it was received;
(b) State the name and address of injured person;
(c) Describe in detail the complaint;
(d) Identify each document which reflects, refers or
relates to any information pertaining to that complaint;
(e) As to any information received orally in answer to
this interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such
information and state the full substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
49. See Interrogatory No. 48.
50. With regard to each product identified in answer to
Interrogatory 1 or 8 state whether you have ever been named as a
defendant in any other action to recover damages for injuries
resulting from cancer including but not limited to mesothelioma
received as a result of using that product and, if so:
(a) State the name and address ofeach plaintiff;
(b) State the name and address of each co-defendant;
(c) State the date it was filed;
(d) State the name of the court in which it was filed;
(e) Describe the judgment rendered;
(f) State the date that has been set' for trial of any case
still pending;
(g) Describe the terms of any settlement reached before
or during trial;
(h) State whether any appeal is pending from any judgment
that has been rendered.
ANSWER:
50. See Interrogatory No. 48.
51. With respect to the period from 1950 through 1980, state
the names, addresses and company title or position of each person who
at any time during that period was in charge of the following
activities with regard to each of the products identified in answer
Interrogatory 1 or 8 :
(a) Production;
(b) Marketing;
(c) Labeling ;
(d) Advertising;
(e) Product evaluation;
ANSWER:
(f ) Research and development; (g) Distribution.
51.
Objection is made providing thirty years of names in seven
broad responsibility classifications as overbroad, burdensome, not
calculated to lead to relevant evidence, and requiring a compilation.
While reserving all objections, R. Terry Lefever has had the
responsibility for manufacturing, operations, formulations,
purchasing, sales and safety for the Hobart Brothers Filler Metals
Division from January 1977 to the present.
52. Identify the living parties or persons who are the roost knowledgeable about asbestos mined and products containing asbestos sold and/or distributed by you from 1936 to present. Identify all documents which relate to such sales and/or distribution. ANSWER:
52. R. Terry Lefever. No such documents survive of which Defendant is aware.
53. Have you or has anyone on your behalf attended and/or participated in any conference, seminar, lecture or symposium dealing with the hazards ofusing any product identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 or 8 or of asbestos in general and, if so, state:
(a) The date and place of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium;
(b) The person or persons conducting such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium;
(c) The person or persons who attended on you behalf; (d) The subject matter of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; (e) The speakers and/or moderators at such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; (f) Whether any reports or memoranda were made concerning the subject matter of such conference, seminar, lecture or symposium; identifying each such report or memorandum. ANSWER: 53. Not as to asbestos.
Product
Min./Max. Asbestos % in Finished Product
447
--
0.645
611
0.612
0.952
710
1.820
3.500
711
0.616
0.672
885
0.332
0.483
Cast Iron
1.370
2.280
Rocket Groove
0.950
1.230
Strong Cast
1.730
1.810
Percentaae of Asbestos in Coatina
4.300 3.400 16.500 2.800 3.020 11.400 1.900 10.900
MPW 9/1/87
54.
Are you familiar with the hearing concerning the dangers
of asbestos conducted in March, 1967 before the House of
Representatives of the United State Congress Sub-Committee on Labor?
If so, identify those persons who are or were associated with you
that were familiar with that hearing.
ANSWER:
54. No.
55. State when, if at all, you received knowledge of the
following publications or matters discussed therein, who received
such knowledge and identify all documents relating to such knowledge:
(a) Fleischer, Viles, Gade and Drinker, "A Health Survey
of Pipe-Covering Operations in Construction Naval Vessels," 28 J.
Indus. Hyg. 9-16.
(b) Selikoff, et al., "Asbestosis and Neoplasia," 42 Am.
J. Med. (1967);
(c) Selikoff, Churg and Hammon, "The Occurrence of
Asbestosis Among Industrial Insulation Workers," 132 Ann. New York
Acad. Sc. 139 (1965);
(d) "Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
Substances in Workroom Air," A.C.G.I.H. (3rd 1971);
(e) "Threshold Limit Values for 1961," A.C.G.I.H. (1961);
(f) 1906 report by Dr. H. Montague Murray;
(g) 1934 study by Dr. Anthony J. Lanza, Assistant Medical
Director of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
ANSWER:
55.
Hobart Brothers cannot pinpoint if or whenany individual
in its employ became aware of these publications.
56.
Identify each publication contained in your research
library, or otherwise in your custody, including but not by way of
limitation, your Research and Development Center, all medical
journals, industrial medical journals, industrial hygiene journals,
technical literature in the area of asbestos mining, manufacture,
application and use, and Governmental publications, dealing with
occupational diseases arising from the manufacture and use of
asbestos containing products. As to all such publications, state the
volumes which are in your custody and control, when each such volume
was received and the present location of such publications.
ANSWER:
56. Objection is made to this interrogatory as overbroad,
burdensome, and requiring a compilation. Without waiving objections,
Defendant avers that it is generally aware of the asbestos literature
in the public domain.
57. As to any threshold limit values published by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state whether you
have brought such information to the attention of those using your
products. If you have not done so, state the reasons why you have
not done so.
ANSWER:
57. Yes. 58. Have you been:
(a) a member of or (b) affiliated in any
manner with or (c) received reports or (d) subscribed for reports
or publication to the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of Pittsburgh?
ANSWER: 58. No. 59. With regard to Interrogatory 58, what years did you
participate under (a), (b), (c) or (d)? ANSWER:
59. Not applicable. 60. With regard to Interrogatory 58, do you have any documents obtained from the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? If so:
(a) List all such documents; (b) Who currently has them in their possession? (c) When was each received? (d) State the name of the individuals who received such documents or information contained in such documents. ANSWER: 60. No. 61. Have you received any reports or documents prepared by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 1929 to about 1960, concerning statistical and other studies of asbestos workers for Johns-Manville? If so, state: (a) The documents received; (b) Who received them and when; (c) The current location of the documents. ANSWER: 61. No. 62. State all chemical, industrial, medical or trade
associations to which you have belonged since 1936.
ANSWER: 62. Objection is made to supplying membership information for
54 years as burdensome, requiring a compilation, and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence. When Defendant is asked to survey membership do all its employees, present and former, for such a period, that request is impossible to comply with and harassment. While preserving all objections, if plaintiff will identify those organizations of which he requires knowledge, Defendant will attempt to supply information regarding corporate memberships.
63. With regard to the associations enumerated in the answer to Interrogatory 62, state:
(a) The names of each individual associated with the answering defendant since that date who have had dealings with each said association;
(b) Describe the nature of their dealings with each such association;
(c) State their last known address; (d) If still employed, their current job and title. ANSWER: 63. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 62. 64. Name each corporate officer and/or member of corporate management who attended any meeting and/or conference concerning the health and medical aspects of asbestos and/or the use of products containing asbestos, and for each person identified, state the nature of his participation in each such meet i n g or conference.
ANSWER:
64. See Answer to interrogatory No. 16. Hobart objects to
providing any further responses as efforts to do so would be
burdensome if not impossible. Hobart cannot attempt to canvas every
corporate officer or manager who may have attended a meeting or
conference where asbestos was even generally discussed.
65. State the sources or all products containing asbestos which
have been incorporated in any product manufactured by you which have
been distributed, sold and/or utilized from 1936 to 1980.
(a) State the names of all individuals associated witii the
above stated sources who dealt with or handled your account;
(b) Identify any such document which refers, reflects or
relates to any information provided in answer to this interrogatory;
(c) As to any information received orally in answer to
this
interrogatory,identify each person who supplied such
information and state the Lull substance of the information supplied.
ANSWER:
65. None.
66. For each product identified in the answer to Interrogatory
1 or 8, which you distributed, identify the source from which you
obtained the-product.
(a) State the names of all individuals associated with the
above stated sources who dealt with or handled your account and
specify who handled your account for products distributed to
Delaware;
(b) Identify any such d o c um e n t s w h i c h refer, reflect or
relate to any information provided in answer to this Interrogatory.
ANSWER: 66. All welding rods were manufactured by this Defendant. 67. State the names of all individuals associated with you who
had any dealings with the requisition and/or procurement of asbestos or products containing asbestos as indicated in answer to Interrogatories 65 and 66 for each such person:
(a) Identify the nature of his association(s ), the locations and the dates of their occurrence;
(b) Identify each document which refers, reflects or relates to any information provided in answer to this Interrogatory;
(c) As to any information received orally in answer to this Interrogatory, identify each person who supplied such information and state the full substance or the information supplied. ANSWER:
67. Objection to this Interrogatory as not relevant and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence. While reserving all objections, no one who is presently employed by this Defendant was involved with these historical purchases.
68. State the names of all individuals who dealt with or handled the account with and/or made any sales to the employer of the Plaintiff of asbestos and/or products containing asbestos::
(a) Describe in detail the nature and dates of each association with the said accounts;
(b) Identify each document which refers, reflects or relates to any information provided in answer to this Interrogatory.
ANSWER:
68. Hobart Brothers has no knowledge of sales to plaintiffs'
employers which may have been made by distributors. Until Hobart has
information regarding the specific identity of any employers, it is
impossible to answer this Interrogatory regarding direct sales. If
and when such information is provided, Hobart will attempt to
research the issue upon specific request.
69. Identify each individual whom you expect to call as an
expert witness at the trial of this litigation, and for each person
identified:
(a) The subject on which the expert is expected to testify
and the substance of the facts and opinions to which he or she is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion;
(b) Identify each document referring, relating or
containing any such facts and/or opinions and identify each
individual having custody of each document identified.
ANSWER:
69.
The Hobart Brothers Company reserves the right to call any
expert witness designated by any other party to this case, including plaintiffs, and to call any witness for rebuttal purposes. Any treating, examining^, or diagnosing physician, diagnostician,
scientist, or other health care provider designated or identified by any party, including any treating, examining, diagnosing, or consulting physician or health care provider designated or in any way
identified by plaintiffs in answers to Interrogatories, depositions,
or otherwise may also be called.
As of the date oL the filing of this supplemental response, plaintiffs have failed to specifically identify Hobart Brothers Company as a manufacturer or distributor of any asbestos-containing product to which plaintiff alleges exposure. Accordingly, the Hobart Brothers Company reserves the right to further supplement this response prior to trial.
In order to provide plaintiff with the identity of specific expert witnesses which may testify at trial on behalf of Hobart Brothers Company, the following identification and information is provided with the understanding that Hobart Brothers Company reserves the right to add additional witnesses and/or substitute any of the below-named witnesses with alternatives who will testify along the lines of the proposed testimony below in the event that any of the individuals named below are not available for trial.
GREGORY J. FINO, M.D. Dr. Fino is a 1y76 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He underwent an internship and residency in internal medicine at the University Health Center of Pittsburgh from 1976 to 1979 and completed a two year fellowship in pulmonary medicine at the University Health Center of Pittsburgh in 1982. He is Board Certified in internal medicine and the subspecialty of pulmonary diseases, having received those certifications from the American Board of Internal Medicine in 1979 and 1982 respectively, and is a member of the American College of Physicians and the American Thoracic Society, and a Fellow in the American College of Chest Physicians. Dr. Fino is a certified "B" Reader.
As a regular pari, of his practice as a member of the firm of South Hills Pulmonary Associates in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dr. Fino examines and treats patients with occupationally-related pulmonary diseases, including asbestos-related pulmonary diseases. Dr. Fino will testify generally about the asbestos-related pulmonary diseases, including causes and effects. Since the plaintiffs have not identified a Hobart Brothers Company product that allegedly caused injuries, it is impossible to determine the exact nature and extent of Dr. Fino's testimony at this time. However, Dr. Fino may address the nature and causation of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries and he may testify concerning the alleged relationship between any products associated with Hobart Brothers Company (welding rods) and any asbestos-related disease which allegedly resulted from exposure to or use of such products.
Dr. Fino will also testify about his research of the medical literature for any association between asbestos-related lung diseases and electric arc welding and will state that based upon his literature search, his education and training, and his experience as a pulmonary physician, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, electric arc welding docs not _cause any asbestos-related lung disease, including mesothe1ioma.
Dr. Fino will base his testimony and opinions on professional education, training, and experience, and on his review of published and unpublished studies and literature relating to asbestos-related disease, and information about asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to, manufacture product information, scientific studies, deposition testimony, discovery
responses, and medical records. He may further rely upon the entire record in this case, including any evidence produces at trial.
DR. JACK E. PETERSON Dr. Peterson holds a Ph.D. in industrial health received from the University of Michigan in 1968 and is a self-employed consulting industrial hygienist concerned with the recognition, evaluation, and control of hazards to health or well-being arising in and from work environments. He is Board Certified in the comprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene and is a member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the American Academy of Industrial Hygiene, the Council of Industrial Hygiene Consultants, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. He has taught courses in industrial hygiene at Marquette University, the University of Illinois, and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. As part of his overall experience, Dr. Peterson has worked alongside welders and has performed industrial hygiene studies and tests on welders. In particular, in 1984, Dr. Peterson was the director of a comprehensive baseline industrial hygiene survey of the Long Beach, California Naval Shipyard where he was personally involved in evaluating exposures throughout the shipyard. Welding was the largest job category evaluated over the six month duration of the survey. He also evaluated welders as part of his employment duties as a Chemical Engineer with the Dow Chemical Company and has been periodically involved with the evaluation of welders since
becoming self-employed as noted above in the early 1970's. Further, during the summer of 1951, Dr. Peterson worked as a helper in the electric shop of th Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington where he had occasion to work alongside welders, pipefitters, insulators, and shipfitters and where he became personally knowledgeable about the trade of welding.
Based upon his education, training and experience, Dr. Peterson will testify about the manufacturing process involved with welding rods and the welding process itself. The manufacturing process involved would completely encapsulate the asbestos fibers so that the use or other handling of asbestos-containing welding rods would not be a dusty process and would not release respirable asbestos fibers. Further, since the asbestos fibers are bonded with other components of the flux coating material, even if the coating were scraped or chipped off the rod, any resulting particles would be far too large to be inhaled and deposited in the lungs.
During the welding process, an arc is struck between the rod and the base metal that is to be welded. The temperature attained at the arc must be well above the melting point of the base or rod metals and of the coating on the rod. The average temperature of an electric arc struck between a coated welding electrode and a steel or iron surface is approximately 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit. On the other hand, chrysotile asbestos decomposes at approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, the welding of mild steel (the main use for rods having a coating that contained asbestos) 'is at
temperatures well in excess of the melting point of that steel and the heat of the arc completely destroys the asbestos in the coating of the rod. The same is true with respect to the welding scale, which is largely iron oxide. The destruction of asbestos during normal use of the rod is so complete that no asbestos fibers enter the welding fume and, accordingly, welding fume cannot be a cause of asbestosis, pleural disease, or any other asbestos-related disease.
Dr. Peterson is familiar with the medical literature concerning asbestos-related diseases and welding and may testify as to the contents of that literature. In short, reliable authorities indicate that there is no risk of asbestos exposure to welders using asbestos-coated rods since the heat generated by the rods is in excess of the heat necessary to decompose all types of fibers.
Finally, based upon education, training experience, Dr. Peterson will testify about the general presence of asbestos in the ambient air, types of asbestos, and asbestos-related illnesses and injuries in general.
In short, Dr. Peterson will testify that with a reasonable degree of industrial hygienist/scientific certainty, neither the handling or use of welding rods, nor welding -fume created by the welding process, cause or play any role in the development of asbestosis, pleural disease, or any other asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma.
Dr. Peterson will base his testimony and his opinions on his professional education, training, and experience, on his review of published and unpublished scient ific medical and industrial hygiene literature, on his review and familiarity with scientific
studies and tests, and on his personal experiences with welders, welding, and the welding process in general. He may further rely on the entire record in this case, including discovery materials, medical records, and evidence produces at trial.
NATHANIEL F. RODMAN, M.D. Dr. Rodman attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, graduated with honors in 1947 from Princeton University, and was awarded an M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 1951. He served as an intern at Landenau Hospital in Philadelphia from 1951 to 1952 and as Fellow and Resident in Pathology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, from 1952 to 1953 and from 1955 to 1958. He has held positions as Instructor, Assistant Professor, and Associated Professor of Pathology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill from 1958 to 1970. From 1970 to July, 1974, Dr. Rodman served as a Professor of Pathology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. Since 1974, Dr. Rodman has been both a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pathology at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Since 1959, Dr. Rodman has been certified in Anatomic Pathology by the American Board of Pathology. He is a member of numerous professional and learned societies including the American Association of Pathologists and the International Academy of Pathology.
Dr. Rodman will testify as a Pathologist and he will base his testimony on his general knowledge, education, training, and experience, as well as on his review of medical records and information concerning the plaintiffs. However, since medical
records, tissue slides and blocs, and the like concerning plaintiffs have not been made available to Hobart Brothers Company or its counsel, it is impossible to state with specificity what the nature or extent of Dr. Rodman's testimony may be. Once pertinent materials are made available, this interrogatory will be further supplemented.
DR. THOMAS EAGAR Dr. Eagar is a Professor of Materials Engineering at Massachusetts Institute ol Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He received a B.S. in Metallurgy and Materials Science from MIT in 1972. He then went on to complete the requirements of a Sc.D. Degree in Metallurgy from MIT in 1974. Following his education, he served as Research Engineer in the welding group at Bethlehem Steel Corporation in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, he returned to MIT where he served as an Assistant Professor of Materials Engineering. Except for one year sabbatical in Tokyo, Japan where he studied material processing and welding, Dr. Eagar has remained at MIT where he now serves as a full Professor and Chairman of program designed to improve U.S. Manufacturing. Dr. Eagar is a member of various professional and learned associations, has received numerous awards, has authored many articles about welding, is the holder of several U.S. patents concerning welding, and has personally performed manual and automatic welding. Since .1974, Dr. Eagar has devoted his professional research endeavors to welding and the welding processes.
Dr. Eagar will testify regardi ng welding and the we ld in g process. In the most gener al sense, w e l d i n g involves the joining of
two materials by a process which produces substantially the same properties in the joint as exist in the materials being joined. More specifically, with regard to shielded metal arc welding (.SMAW), welding is the fusion of two metals (usually steel) through application of heat. The heat causes melting of the edges of the steel. The liquid metal intermixes and solidifies as the source of heat is removed. The solidified pool is commonly called the weld metal and is the material which produces the joint.
In SMAW, a steel rod is coated with a granular, cement-like material called flux. Together, the rod and the flux are called a welding electrode. The purpose of the flux is to control the chemical composition of the liquid metal during welding by excluding oxygen and nitrogen from the air and by chemically alloying and refining the molten steel.
In arc welding, the electrode is connected to one end of an electrical power supply and the metal to be welded is connected to the other end of the power supply. In SMAW, the bare steel tip of the electrode is touched to the steel to be welded and is drawn away to produce a short gap, a fraction of an inch in length, between the electrode and the metal to be welded. The voltage in the power supply causes an electrical current to bridge this gap. The current heats the air to create a plasma, which emits a very intense light. This is the welding arc. The temperature of this arc plasma exceeds 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is far in excess of melting temperature of the most refractory materials. Everything held in contact with this intense plasma melts or vaporizes. The edges of the steel to be joined meld and form a liquid weld pool. The steel
tip of the electrode melts as does the flux coating surrounding the steel rod. The liquid steel from the end of the rod and the liquid flux, now called a slag, transfer across the arc from the electrode to the weld pool as liquid drops. The liquid steel drops coalesce with the liquid weld pool, to enlarge the weld pool and the liquid slag (formerly flux) floats on top of the liquid metal as a protective covering. As the arc is removed, the weld pool cools and solidifies to form a weld. The protective slag also solidifies, usually a glassy layer which is later removed from the weld surface.
Arc welding has been performed for over 100 years. Shielded metal arc welding has been used extensively for more than sixty years, while both gas metal arc welding (GMAW) and flux cored arc welding (FCAW) are more recent developments over the past twenty-five or thirty-five years. Without these processes, much of our way of life would not exist.
Welding and joining is essential to virtually every manufactured product, from miniature computer chips to huge ships. As such, approximately forty percent of our gross national product, or $2 trillion worth of goods, relies on welding and joining. Steel constitutes ninety-five percent of all metals by volume and is essential to over one-half of our manufactured products. Thus, some $1 trillion, or twenty percent of our gross national product relies on our ability to fabricate steel quickly, inexpensively, and reliably. The vast majority of steel that is used is joined by arc welding. SMAW, FCAW and GMAW are the m o s t common methods of arc welding steel.
There is a host of products that are produced less
expensively because of arc welding. These include, for example, automobiles, bridges, buildings, pipelines, aircraft and ships. Each of these could be produced without arc welding, but the weight would increase, along with manufacturing costs and maintenance. Failures of non-welded parts would be considerably greater and a large number of lives would be lost as a result of these failures. Arc welding has reduced the cost and increased the reliability of a large number of products and structures to which we trust our lives on a daily basis. One dramatic example is the space shuttle Challenger, which would not have failed if the joint had been welded. Indeed, one of the corrections suggested after the failure was welding of the seals.
There are a number of industries, such as gas pipelines, that can show historical improvements in safety as the industry changed from bolted or riveted joints to welding. If one were to extrapolate back to former failure rates before welding, one could conclude that many thousands of lives and even larger numbers of serious injuries have been prevented due to our ability to weld structure together.
There is a second class of products which could not even be built without welding. The strength, reliability, and lightweight provided by welding, as compared with other joining processes, permits us to increase the size of many objects. Tall skyscrapers, long bridges, huge ships, large utility plants for water and electricity could not be constructed without welding. Without welding, the work would not achieve the economics of scale afforded in transportation, utilities, constructions, agriculture, and the like.
There are many technological advances that have produced society as we know it today. Welding is most certainly one such technology which is essential to our modern way of life.
Based upon his education, training, and experience, Dr. Eagar will testify that, with a reasonable degree of scientific and metallurgical certainty, any asbestos fibers contained in the coating of a welding rod are completely consumed by the heat generated and involved in the welding process and are not, therefore, released into the atmosphere during welding. This is based on the fact that asbestos fibers will decompose, melt, and/or dissolve at approximately 1,500 degree Fahrenheit which is substantially less than the intense heat of the arc. Dr. Eagar will further testify that, based upon his education, training, and experience, and with a reasonable degree of scientific and metallurgical certainly, the encapsulation of the asbestos in the manufacturing process involved with coated welding rods results in any particulate matter which might be generated during normal, industrial use and/or handling of welding rods which may contain asbestos as a component of the coating of the rods.
WILLIAM G. HUGHSON, M.D. Dr. Hughson earned his medical degree from the University, of Calgary (Canada) in 1973. In 1977, he received a Ph.D in Epidemiology from Oxford University. He was Board Certified in Internal Medicine by the American College of Physicians in 1979 and again certified in Pulmonary Medicine in 1982. He has served internships and residencies in various hospitals and health care
facilities and is a Member and Fellow of numerous medical and professional associations and boards. Currently, Dr. Hughson is an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and is the Director of the Occupational Health Center at the University of California, San Diego.
Dr. Hughson may testify as a Pulmonary Physician and/or as an Epidemiologist.
Dr. Hughson's testimony as a Pulmonary physician will be based upon his review of plaintiffs' medical records and other plaintiff specific information. However, since plaintiffs' medical records and information have not yet been made available to Hobart Brothers Company and its counsel, a more specific accounting of Dr. Hughson's Pulmonary Physician testimony is not possible at this time. This interrogatory will be further supplemented if it is determined that Dr. Hughson will testify as a pulmonary physician.
Dr. Hughson may festify as an Epidemiologist about causes, effects, and processes involved in asbestos-related injuries and diseases. He will testify that there is no medical support for an allegation that welding, results in any asbestos-related injuries and diseases. He will testify that there is no medical support for an allegation that welding results in any asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma. lie is unaware of any medical literature indicating that welding rods or the welding process is responsible for asbestosis. Though asbestosis has been described in welders, this has always been caused by exposure to fibers generated by other trades during activities such as insulating pipes and boilers, ship repair, etc. Absent bystander exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
released into the welder's environment by these activities,, there is no evidence that welding rods per se cause asbestosis in welders. When occupational exposures to asbestos from these sources are considered, there is no evidence that exposure to asbestos-containing welding rods increases the risk of asbestosis or asbestos-related malignancies among welders compared with other trades.
As an epidemiologist reviewing the medical literature to determine whether a causal relationship exists between an occupational exposure and a particular pulmonary disease, Dr. Hughson looks for certain characteristics in the available data. These include the strength and consistency of the relationship between the exposure and the disease, and the specificity of that relationship.He also examines the biological plausibility (coherence) of the relationship, including the presence of dose-response and temporal factors such as the latency period between exposure and disease. During the course of his work as the Director of the UCSD Occupational Health Center, and relying on his expertise as an epidemiologist/physician trained and experienced in Pulmonary Medicine and Occupational Medicine, 'he has made an extensive review of the medical literature concerning the health effects of asbestos. There is no credible epidemiologic evidence that welding rods cause or contribute to the development of asbestosis or asbestos-related diseases.
Dr. Hughson's testimony will be presented in terms of reasonable medical certainty and will be based upon his knowledge, training, education, and experience.
70.
Identify each individual who you have retained or employed
or anticipate retaining or employing in any way in preparation of or
anticipation of trial in this litigation who is not expected to be
called as a witness at trial, and for each such individual:
(a) State the substance of' any facts or opinion which he
or she has discussed with any agent, employee or representative of
the answering defendant, together with a summary of the grounds for
each opinion;
(b) Identify each document referring to or containing such
facts and/or opinions, and identify each person having custody of
each document identified.
ANSWER:
70. Objection. Work product.
71. State the names, last known addresses and telephone numbers
of each and every person whom you intend to call as a witness at the
trial of this litigation.
(a) State the substance of any facts or opinion which he
or she has discussed with any agent, employee or representative of
the answering defendant, together with a summary of the grounds for
each opinion;
(b) Identify each document referring to or containing such
facts and/or opinions, and identify each person having custody of
each document identified;
(c) Specify witnesses you intend to use at the trial of
this case with respect to the occurrences and/or cause of plaintiffs'
illnesses or wi th respe ct to the c l aim ed damag es or with respec t to
your liability.
ANSWER:
71. R. Terry Lefever, Hobart Brothers Company. See Answer to
Interrogatory No. 69 above. In addition, Hobart reserves the right
to call and to introduce evidence, either by way of live testimony
or by way of deposition, from any witness, fact or otherwise.
72. State:
(a) Whether your corporation is insured;
(b) If so, the limits of coverage;
(c } The name of the insurance company;
(d) Whether this claim has been accepted or whether a
letter of intent to deny coverage has been received.
ANSWER:
72. Objection is made to this inquiry as not relevant and not
calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence. While
reserving all objections, Defendant states that it has sued its
insurers for coverage and obtained a settlement. Such settlement is
confidential and only to be revealed by court order. Defendant
requests that a protective order be entered to limit dissemination
if this is required by court to be disclosed. While reserving all
objections, this claim has been accepted subject to the settlement
agreement described herein.
73. In whose possession are you and your predecessors' annual
reports from 1936 to the present? Produce such reports.
ANSWER:
73.
Objection is made to production of these annual reports,
which are confidential to this privately-held company and would
damage Defendant in its competitive dealings. Objection is also made
on the basis of relevance.
74.
Describe in detail your policy with respect to the
destruction of records pertaining to each of the products identified
in answer to Interrogatory 1:
(a) Identify all documents pertaining to your policy, if
any, regarding the destruction of such records;
(b) Identify the person or persons having custody of such
policy documents;
{c) Identify the person or persons in charge of destroyina
records pertaining to each such products;
(d) Identify each document which refers, reflects or
relates to any information provided in answer to this Interrogatory;
(e) Describe what steps, if any, you have taken since the
institution of this action or to other actions involving asbestos to
prevent the destruction of any documents relating to asbestos.
ANSWER:
74. No formal record retention policy. State and federal laws
concerning various records ire observed.
75. State the names of all individuals who aided in the
preparation of these answers, and for each such person, state:
(a) Which interrogatories they helped prepare or the
particular subject area for which they supplied information;
(b) Their current position with the company;
(c) Their current or last known home and business address
and phone numbers.
ANSWER:
75. Mildred P. Woryk
(a) all
(b) Associate Counsel
(c) Hobart Brothers Company.
76.
State all processes used by plaintiff's employer, known to
any defendant where asbestos was an ingredient.
ANSWER:
76. Unknown. Defendant has received no discovery.
77. State all use of asbestos insulation by plaintiff's
employer, known to any defendant:
(a) Types of asbestos insulation used;
(b) Manufacturer and/or brand names;
(c) Locations in said plants where said insulation was
used;
(d) The person most knowledgeable in said corporation
about the purchasing of insulation by distributors that covered the
states of New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
ANSWER:
77. Unknown.
78. . If you have insurance including secondary or tertiary
coverage, state:
(a) Policy number and amount;
(b) Company underwriting said insurance;
(c) The name of your contact in said company concerning
asbestos claims.
ANSWER:
78. See Interrogatory No. 72. 79. state whether you have entered into any agreement, either
oral or written, with any other defendant in this action regarding:
(1) Settlement or non-settlement and/or (2) Allocation of damages, should the plaintiffs prevail on liability. If the answer is yes to either of the above, state the substance of each such agreement and such parties who have entered into this agreement:
(a) Identify those_persons who participated in the preparation of each such agreement and describe in detail the nature and extent of his participation; and
(b) Identify each document which contains, refers or relates to each such agreement. ANSWER:
79. Objection is made to this Interrogatory as not relevant and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence.
80. Do. you or your attorneys know of any person or persons not listed inthe preceding answers having knowledge of facts relevant to the allegations in this lawsuit including witnesses to the accident, injury, illnesses, etc. in question? If yes, please state the names, addresses, home telephone numbers, places of employment, relationship to you, the present whereabouts of all such persons, and which of said persons you intend to produce as witnesses in the trial of this action. ANSWER:
80. None other than as disclosed in discovery to date. 81. Do you or your attorneys have any written statements which you have not previously produced in this suit from any persons having knowledge of facts relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit,
including witnesses to the accident, injury, illnesses,- etc. in question? If yes, please state the names, addresses, home telephone numbers, places of employment, relationship to you and the present whereabouts of all such persons. ANSWER:
81. No. 82. State whether you were a member of the Asbestos Information Association (A.I.A.) or in any manner received information or participated in any association's activities. ANSWER: 82. No. 83. If you answer to any part of Interrogatory 82 is in th affirmative, please state:
(a) The date, times and places of any A.I.A. meetings attended ;
(b) The date and time period during which you received any publication of the A.I.A.;
(c) The name, address and telephone number of each and every person who attended such meetings and to whom any such publications were sent;
(d) The nature of the information that was furnished at meetings or in such publications;
(e) Name, address and telephone number of the present or last known custodian of any copies of A.I.A. newsletters, correspondence or publications. ANSWER:
83. Not applicable.
84.
State whether you received a publication known as the
"Asbestos Magazine".
ANSWER:
84. No.
85. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 84 is in the
affirmative, please state:
(a) The date and time periods during which you received
such publication;
(b) The frequency of receipt, e.g., regularly,
occasionally, rarely, etc.;
(c) The terms, circumstances or requirements of receipt
of such publication, e.g., free, by subscription, distributed at
meetings, etc.
(d) Name, address and telephone number of the present or
last known custodian of any copies of such magazine.
ANSWER:
85. Not applicable.
86. Does the answer ing defendant have in its possession any
medical records, not previously produced in this case relating to any
of the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, charts, x-rays,
physical examination reports, summaries, tape recordings of
interviews and any and al 1 other records pertaining to the medical
condition of the plaintiffs? If so, plaintiffs request that such
records be produced in accordance with Rule 34.
ANSWER:
86. No.
87. With respect to each contention contained in your response
to the Complaint, state tho following:
DATED:
LORETO P. RUFO ,, Stoney Batter Office Center 5301 Limestone Road Suite 225 Wilmington, De 19808
Asbestos in Hobart Brothers Company Products
The following is a listing of the 24 products offered by Hobart Brothers which contained asbestos. The percentage of asbestos to coating and the percentage of asbestos to the entire product is given.
Where available, the percentages for the largest amount and for the smallest amount are given. Amounts vary in the same product because the same product is offered in several sizes.
The percentage computed is not the actual formulation ratio; since much of the liguid silicate is dissipated in processing, the more accurate (and higher) percentage of asbestos in the final product was calculated.
Product
10 10IP 12 12A 27 55 77 83 111 111HT 220 220B 335 335A 384 398
Min./Max. Asbestos % in Finished Product
0.345 0.595
1.030 1.380
0.430 0.690
0.520 0.611
0.252
0.296
1.800 2.530
0.782
1.200
0.430 0.702
5.320 6.980
5.250 5.830
1.260 1.440
--
1.190
0.218 0.290
1.890 2.960
5.600 6.200
0.490 0.603
Percentaoe of Asbestos in Coatinc
2.810 6.900 2.700 2.600 0.520 16.400 4.600 2.700 10.900 10.500 9.000 8.500 1.210 11.400 1.000 0.980
