Preview
____________________________________
FBT-CV-22-6113982-S :
: SUPERIOR COURT
THOMAS TOMKO and :
DEBORAH TOMKO, : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
:
Plaintiffs, : AT BRIDGEPORT
:
v. :
: AUGUST 24, 2022
UNION CARBIDE CORP., et al., :
:
Defendants. :
____________________________________ :
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC’S OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 13-8, Mine Safety Appliances Company,
LLC (“MSA”), hereby files the following objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, to accompany
its supplemental responses to same:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
During what period of time did the defendant manufacture, sell, and distribute the
Dustfoe 77?
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
During what period of time did the Dustfoe 77 bear the defendant’s Part No. 96000?
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA
further objects to the term “bear” as vague and ambiguous.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Please list any other part numbers associated with the Dustfoe 77.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Please list all of the defendant’s part numbers for the dust filters used with the Dustfoe
77.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA
further objects to the term “dust filters” as vague and ambiguous.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
During what period of time did the Dustfoe 77 dust filters bear part numbers 96077
and/or 96106?
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA
further objects to the terms “dust filters” and “bear” as vague and ambiguous.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
During what period of time did the Dustfoe 77 dust filters have Bureau of Mines approval
under Schedule 21B (and/or 21B-97)?
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
2
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Please state the date on which the defendant first obtained approval for the Dustfoe 77
under Bureau of Mines Schedule 21B (and/or 21B-97) and whether that approval was ever
revoked, rescinded, withdraw, suspended or otherwise ceased, including the reasons why such
approval was revoked, rescinded, withdraw, suspended or otherwise ceased.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Please state all dates on which the container for the Dustfoe 77 bore a label indicating
that it was approved by the Bureau of Mines under Schedule 21B (and/or 21B-97), including but
not limited to the first date and the last date on which the container bore such labels.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA
further objects to the term “bore” as vague and ambiguous.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Was the Dustfoe 77 ever approved for protection against dusts and mists having a
Threshold Limit Value less than 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter or 2.4 million particles per cubic
foot? If the answer is affirmative, please state the dates on which the Dustfoe 77 had such
approval and the corresponding approval number(s).
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Was the Dustfoe 77 ever approved for protection against asbestos fibers? If the answer is
affirmative, please state the years during which it had such approval and the specific approval
numbers.
3
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Did the defendant sell, distribute or otherwise provide Dustfoe 77 respirators to Rogers
Corporation for use by Rogers Corporation at its factories in Connecticut? If the answer is
affirmative, please state the dates during which such sales occurred, the quantities of Dustfoe 77
respirators provided, and the name(s) of the persons who served as the defendant’s principal
contact with Rogers Corporation.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Please state with specificity whether the defendant was aware of the nature of Rogers
Corporation’s manufacturing operations in Connecticut during the period 1968-1991, including
but not limited to whether the defendant knew that Rogers Corporation was using asbestos in its
manufacturing operation.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Please state with specificity whether the defendant was aware during the period 1968-
1977 that Rogers Corporation was providing its employees with the Dustfoe 77 for use in
environments where airborne asbestos fibers were present.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
4
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Was the defendant aware of the results of any asbestos air monitoring conducted in the
Rogers Corporation factories in Connecticut during the period 1968-1977.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Did the defendant ever test the Dustfoe 77 and/or part numbers 96000, 96077 and/or
96106 to determine whether they protected the user from inhaling asbestos fibers? If the answer
is affirmative, please state all information about any and all such tests, including the dates,
persons involved, circumstances, conditions and results.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Please state with specificity all of the components and/or materials from which the
Dustfoe 77 dust filters were manufactured during the period 1968-1977.
OBJECTION:
MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the
Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr.
Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA
further objects as the Interrogatory calls for confidential trade secret information.
5
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC,
By its Attorneys,
/s/ John R. Felice
John R. Felice, Juris No. 435040
jfelice@hermesnetburn.com
HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING, P.C.
265 Franklin Street, Seventh Floor
Boston, MA 02110-3113
(617) 728-0050
Dated: August 24, 2022 (617) 728-0052 (Fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed or electronically delivered to
Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, and notice was sent via electronic mail to all defense counsel, with
copies provided upon request, on August 24, 2022.
/s/ John R. Felice
John R. Felice, Juris No. 435040
6
Preview
____________________________________ FBT-CV-22-6113982-S : : SUPERIOR COURT THOMAS TOMKO and : DEBORAH TOMKO, : J.D. OF FAIRFIELD : Plaintiffs, : AT BRIDGEPORT : v. : : AUGUST 24, 2022 UNION CARBIDE CORP., et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________ : MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES (SUPPLEMENTAL) Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 13-8, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC (“MSA”), hereby files the following objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, to accompany its supplemental responses to same: INTERROGATORY NO. 2: During what period of time did the defendant manufacture, sell, and distribute the Dustfoe 77? OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: During what period of time did the Dustfoe 77 bear the defendant’s Part No. 96000? OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA further objects to the term “bear” as vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please list any other part numbers associated with the Dustfoe 77. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please list all of the defendant’s part numbers for the dust filters used with the Dustfoe 77. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA further objects to the term “dust filters” as vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: During what period of time did the Dustfoe 77 dust filters bear part numbers 96077 and/or 96106? OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA further objects to the terms “dust filters” and “bear” as vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: During what period of time did the Dustfoe 77 dust filters have Bureau of Mines approval under Schedule 21B (and/or 21B-97)? OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please state the date on which the defendant first obtained approval for the Dustfoe 77 under Bureau of Mines Schedule 21B (and/or 21B-97) and whether that approval was ever revoked, rescinded, withdraw, suspended or otherwise ceased, including the reasons why such approval was revoked, rescinded, withdraw, suspended or otherwise ceased. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please state all dates on which the container for the Dustfoe 77 bore a label indicating that it was approved by the Bureau of Mines under Schedule 21B (and/or 21B-97), including but not limited to the first date and the last date on which the container bore such labels. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA further objects to the term “bore” as vague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Was the Dustfoe 77 ever approved for protection against dusts and mists having a Threshold Limit Value less than 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter or 2.4 million particles per cubic foot? If the answer is affirmative, please state the dates on which the Dustfoe 77 had such approval and the corresponding approval number(s). OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Was the Dustfoe 77 ever approved for protection against asbestos fibers? If the answer is affirmative, please state the years during which it had such approval and the specific approval numbers. 3 OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Did the defendant sell, distribute or otherwise provide Dustfoe 77 respirators to Rogers Corporation for use by Rogers Corporation at its factories in Connecticut? If the answer is affirmative, please state the dates during which such sales occurred, the quantities of Dustfoe 77 respirators provided, and the name(s) of the persons who served as the defendant’s principal contact with Rogers Corporation. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please state with specificity whether the defendant was aware of the nature of Rogers Corporation’s manufacturing operations in Connecticut during the period 1968-1991, including but not limited to whether the defendant knew that Rogers Corporation was using asbestos in its manufacturing operation. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state with specificity whether the defendant was aware during the period 1968- 1977 that Rogers Corporation was providing its employees with the Dustfoe 77 for use in environments where airborne asbestos fibers were present. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Was the defendant aware of the results of any asbestos air monitoring conducted in the Rogers Corporation factories in Connecticut during the period 1968-1977. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Did the defendant ever test the Dustfoe 77 and/or part numbers 96000, 96077 and/or 96106 to determine whether they protected the user from inhaling asbestos fibers? If the answer is affirmative, please state all information about any and all such tests, including the dates, persons involved, circumstances, conditions and results. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state with specificity all of the components and/or materials from which the Dustfoe 77 dust filters were manufactured during the period 1968-1977. OBJECTION: MSA objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome as the Interrogatory is not limited to the period Mr. Tomko allegedly used an MSA product. Per Mr. Tomko’s sworn testimony, his alleged use of an MSA product is limited to 1973 to 1977. MSA further objects as the Interrogatory calls for confidential trade secret information. 5 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC, By its Attorneys, /s/ John R. Felice John R. Felice, Juris No. 435040 jfelice@hermesnetburn.com HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING, P.C. 265 Franklin Street, Seventh Floor Boston, MA 02110-3113 (617) 728-0050 Dated: August 24, 2022 (617) 728-0052 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed or electronically delivered to Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, and notice was sent via electronic mail to all defense counsel, with copies provided upon request, on August 24, 2022. /s/ John R. Felice John R. Felice, Juris No. 435040 6