Preview
ld BR
FRANK D. POND (BAR NO. 126191)
ANN I. PARK (BAR NO. 130394}
KEVIN D. JAMISON (BAR NO. 222105)
POND NORTH LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 617-6170
Facsimile: (213) 623-3594
Attorneys for Defendant CBS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
| ika Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to
CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation, fka Westinghouse Electric
Corporation
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
MAY 14 2007
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ -
Deputy Clefk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA —
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as -
Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT,
Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH;
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT
DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT;
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE
through TENTH DOE, inclusive,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AC. AND §, INC., et al..
~ Defendants.
Case No: CGC-05-443236
EXHIBITS A THROUGH C TO
DECLARATION OF ANN I. PARK IN
SUPPORT OF CBS CORPORATION’S
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO COMPEL AGAINST
PLAINTIFFS
Hearing:
Date: May 21, 2007
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept.: 610 .
Case Filed: July 20, 2005
Trial Date: July 16, 2007
EXHIBITS A THROUGH C TO DECLARATION OF ANN I. PARK IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO COMPEL
4320.1265.248705.1EXHIBIT AexHipiT_fx_
Stephen M. Fishback (State Bar No. 191646)
KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201
‘Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: $18.879.8033
Facsimile: 818.292:8891
Atlomeys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
(UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as
‘Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT, Case No. 443236
Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH;
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT;
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE | INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY
through TENTH DOE, inclusive, DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AC AND §, INC., et al.
Defendants.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant CBS CORPORATION
RESPONDING PARTY: _ Plaintiffs NANCY MARIE SCOTT, JOANNE MARIE
WOLFARTH, MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT, ROBERT DAVID
SCOTT, THOMAS CARY SCOTT, MARY DENISE SOBOLIK
‘SET NUMBER: SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED ONE
Plaintiffs hereby respond to the Special Interrogatories propounded by defendant CBS
CORPORATION as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMEN’
Plaintiffs’ responses are based upon information in plaintiffs’ possession at the time of
answering these interrogatories. Plaintiffs have consulted all sources reasonably available in
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page Iwey Awe owe
cS
preparing these responses. However, discovery and investigation in this action are continuing.
Plaintiffs’ discovery and investigation will continue to and throughout the trial of the above~
captioned action. Plaintiffs and their attomeys have not fully completed their investigation of the
facts related to this case, have uot completed their discovery ia this action and have not completed
their preparation for trial. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and amend these responses if'
plaintiff discovers any additional responsive information.
‘The following responses are based upon plaintiffs’ understanding of the meaning of each of
the interrogatories. If propounding party asserts an interpretation of any interrogatory which
diffors from plaintiffs’ understanding of the meaning of such interrogatory, then any response
contained herein as to any such interrogatory is without prejudice to plaintiff's tight to further
object or respond thereto.
Any response by plaintiffs to these interrogatories over objection does not concede the
relevancy, materiality, or admissibility of any information sought by the discovery requests or any
responses thereto. These responses are made subject to and without waiver of any questions or
objections as to the competency, relevancy, materidlity, privilege, or admissibility of evidence,
documents, or information referred to herein, or the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding,
including trial.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following objections are incorporated by reference into each interrogatory response:
1, _ Plaintiffs object to the extent that the information requested is equally or more
available to the propounding party than responding party;
2. Plaintiffs object to the extent these interrogatories posed herein are overly broad,
vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and speculative due to the unlimited scope
of the request regarding time and location;
3. Plaintifis object to the extent that these interrogatories can only produce information
irrelevant to the subject matter of the above-captioned action, and not reasonably calculated to lead
| to discovery of admissible evidence, and are therefore burdensome, oppressive, and harassing;
4, Plaintiffs object to the extent these interrogatories request information protected by
attomey work product and attomey-client privilege;
5. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous,
and overly broad, so as to be oppressive and unduly burdensome;
6. _ Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they violate Superior Court
General Orders-Asbestos;
7. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they call for expert opinion
testimony in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, et seq, and/or call.
fora legal conclusion, which is not the proper subject of discovery;
8. _ Plaintifis object to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential or
private information, which shall not be disclosed pursuant to the California Constitution, Article 1,
and the Constitution of the United States of America:
9. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seck fo impose greater
obligations than those permitted under the California Code of Civil Procedure;
10, Plaintiffs object to the exteut that these interrogatories seck information protected by
plaintif’s federal, state, and common law rights of privacy; and
11, Plaintiffs further object to the extent that these interrogatoriés call for the disclosure of
| expert information.
Without waiving these objections, plaintiffs respond as follows:
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 2RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 1; Objection, attomey client privilege, attorney
‘work product privilege, Without waiving said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: attomeys
of record, their agents and/or assignees. :
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attorney
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving
said objection, plaintifis respond as follows: plaintiffs have reviewed relevant materials and
cousulted all reasonable sources to obtain information responsive to requests in conformance with
the obligations mandated by law and equity. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend
this response as discovery and investigation continue.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Objection, sitomey-client privilege, attorney
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving
said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or
amend this response as discovery and investigation continue.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Objection, altomey-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving
said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: decedent’s exposure to asbestos may have included,
but is not limited to: asbestos-containing insulation materials, asbestos-containing gaskets,
asbestos-containing packing, asbestos-containing wire/cable, asbestos-containing motors, asbestos-
containing wallboard, asbestos-containing phenolic resins; asbestos-containing Micarta, asbestos-
containing switches, asbestos-containing engines, asbestos-containing switch boxes, asbestos-
| containing circuit boards, asbestos-containing paper, asbestos-containing electrical products and
power supplies and other chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite asbestos-containing materials
supplied by defendant. Plaintiff is continuing to research the specific brand-names, dates of
exposure, packaging, and labeling of all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was
exposed. Due to a number of years over which plaintiff's exposure occurred and the fact that
plaintiff's discovery is ongoing, plaintiff has not yet been able to specify some brand names, dates
of exposure, packaging and labeling of all products. Additionally, decedent was exposed to
defendant's asbestos and asbestos-containing materials used by others working in close proximity
to plaintiff of a kind, type, and variety that plaintiffs may not be aware. Decedent's exposure to
defendant's asbestos and asbestos-containing products, resulting from decedent's and others?
manipulation, installing, cutting, splicing, hammering, removing, or otherwise disturbing
defendant's asbestos products, occurred on a regular basis throughout the duration of decedent's
working career at job sites including, U.S. Navy, September 24, 1940- April 4, 1960,
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California, 1960-1973, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
1960-1973, Alameda Neval Air Station, Alameda, California, 1973-1980, Allan Instrument
Company, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1981-1982. Gyro Marine Instrument, Inc., San
Francisco, California, 1982-1985, Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response
as discovery and investigation continue.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving
said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: Denzil Scott, Nancy Scott, Joanne Wolfarth, Michael
Scott, Robert Scott, Thomas Scott, Mary Sobolik (all plaintiffs c/o Keller, Fishback & Jackson
LLP), Victor Trinchese, c/o Brayton Purcell, Novato, CA, Steven Martin, c/o Brayton Purcell,
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 3rs
Cea aA an urn
Novato, CA, Ray Rachetti, Frank Vassalo, Person Most Knowledeable - CBS Corporation,
decedent’s employers, decedent’s co-workers at the above-listed job sites. Plaintiffs reserve the
right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and investigation continue.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 6: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attorney
Wwork product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are
continuing. Plaintiff is currently not in possession of any documents other than those that
previously produced to defendants. Document responsive to this request are oqually available to
defendant and/or in possession, custody or control of defendant or another party or third party,
previously produced to defendants, or subject to expert witness disclosure rales as set forth in CCP
section 2034, et seq. Also, documents responsive to this request may be subject to copyright or
trademark rales and regulations, and may not be produced.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are
continuing .
NSE TO INTERR' tY NO. 8: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number four.
Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number five.
Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Objection, attomey-cliont privilege, attorney
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Not
such objections, plaintifis respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six. Plaintiffs?
investigation and discovery are continuing,
TO INTERROG, NO. 11: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: .yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery ate
continuing .
RESPONSE TQ INTERROGATORY NG. 12: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound, Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows:’ see response to interrogatory number four.
Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number five.
Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing.
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 4RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey
‘werk produet privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound, Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six. Plaintiffs”
investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs zespond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery arc
contiming .
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number four.
Plaintiffs” investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffS respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number five.
Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six. Plaintiffs”
investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
suk objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was
‘the successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign,
predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent,
subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity
researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling, assembling,
distributing, easing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, sellin, inspecting, servicing, installing,
contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for
others, packaging and advertising a certain product, namely asbestos, and other products
containing asbestos. Bach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, is liable for the tortious
conduct of each successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof,
assign, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary, whole or partial owner,
of wholly or partially owned entity, or entity that it was a member of, or funded, that researched,
studied, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased,
bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation,
repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others and advertised a certain
product, namely asbestos, and other products containing asbestos, Each Defendant, including CBS
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 5Corporation, was and/or are engaged in the business of researching, manufacturing, fabricating,
designing, modifying, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale,
supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing,
marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain
product, namely asbestos and other products containing asbestos, At all times herein mentioned,
Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly
researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, tested or failed to test, abated or failed
‘to abate, warned or failed to wam of the health hazards, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased,
bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation,
repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged and advertised, a
certain product, namely asbestos, and other products containing asbestos, in that said products
caused personal injuries to users, consumers, workers, bystanders and others, including the
decedent herein, while being used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable, thereby rendering
said products unsafe and dangerous for use by decedent. Each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, had a duty to exercise due care in the pursuance of the activities mentioned above
and Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation; breached said duty of due care. Each
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew, or should have known, and intended that the
aforementioned asbestos and products containing asbestos would be transported by truck, rail, ship
and other common carriers, that in the shipping process the products would break, crumble or be
otherwise damaged; and/or that such products would be used for insulation, construction,
plastering, fireproofing, soundproofing, automotive, aircraft and/or other applications, including,
but not limited to sawing, chipping, hammering, scraping, sanding, breaking, removal, “tip-out,”
and other manipulation, resulting in the release of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through such
foreseeable use and/or handling “decedent,” including decedent herein, would use or be in
proximity to and exposed to said asbestos fibers. Plaintiff has used, handled or been otherwise
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products referred to herein in a manner that was
reasonably foresceable. Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products occurred
at various locations. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Each Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, , decedent’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused
severe and permanent injury to the decedent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that progressive lung disease, cancer and/or other serious diseases are caused by inhalation
of asbestos fibers without perceptible trauma and that said disease results from exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products over a period of time. Plaintiff suffers from a condition
related to exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Plaintiff was not aware at the
time of exposure that asbestos or asbestos-containing products presented any risk of injury and/or
disease, As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of each Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, decedent has suffered permanent injuries, death and/or future increased risk of
injuries to his person, body and health, including, but not limited to, asbestosis, other lung damage,
and cancer, and the mental and emotional distress attendant thereto, from the effect of exposure to
asbestos fibers, all to his general damage. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid
conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, plaintiff has incurred liability for
physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospices, x-rays and other medical treatment,
the true and exact amount thereof being unknown to plaintiff at this time. As a further dircct and
proximate result of the said conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, decedent has
incurred, loss of income, wages, profits and commissions, a diminishment of earning potential,
and other pecuniary losses, the full nature and extent of which are not yet known to plaintiffs, Each
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly
ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 6| forming the basis of plaintiffs’ claims. The herein-described conduct of each Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, was and is willfal, malicious, fraudulent, outrageous and in conscious disregard
and indifference to the safety and health of decedents. Each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, knew an¢ intended that the above-referenced asbestos and asbestos-containing
products would be used by the purchaser or user or bystander without inspection for defects
therein or in any of their component parts and without knowledge of the hazards involved in such
use, Said asbestos and asbestos-containing products were defective and unsafe for their intended
purpose in that the inhalation of asbestos fibers causes serious discase and/or death, The defect
existed in the ssid products at the time they left the possession of cach Defendant, including CBS
Corporation. Said products did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung
damage, and/or cancer “decedent,” including decedent herein, while being used in a reasonably
foreseeable manner, thereby rendering the same defective, unsafe and dangerous for use. Plaintiff
did not know of the substantial danger of using said products, Said dangers were not readily
recognizable by decedent. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, further failed to
adequately warn of the tisks to which decedent and others similarly situated were exposed. Said
asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or supplied by each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, with which decedent worked with and/or around were not
substantially nor improperly altered from that of their original manufacture, sale, or supply not
used in an unintended or unforeseeable fashion. The gravit poy of the potential harm resulting for the
use of each Defendants’, including CBS Corporation’s, defective products as described in this
‘cause of action, and the likelihood such harm would occur, outweighed the cost of feasible
alternative designs, including providing adequate warning of such potential harm, including
asbestos-related disease, and any perceived disadvantage of an alternative design. In researching,
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, testing or failing to test, warning or failing to
‘warn, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling,
inspeoting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re~
branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising asbestos and asbestos-containing
products, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did so with conscious disregard for the
safety of decedent who came in contact with said asbestos and asbestos-containing products, in
that said each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, had prior knowledge that there was a
substantial risk of injury ot death resulting from exposure to asbestos or asl
products, including, but not limited to, asbestosis, other lung damages and cancer. Said knowledge
‘was obtained, in part, from scientific studies performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance
of, said cach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, and which knowledge was obtained by each
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, on or before 1930, and thereafter. On or before 1930, and
thereafter, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was aware that members of the general
public and decedent who would come in contact with their asbestos and asbestos-containing
products, had no knowledge or information indicating that asbestos or asbestos-containing
products could cause injury, and each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew that members
of the general public decedent who came in contact with asbestos and asbestos-containing
products, would assume, and in fact did assume, that exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing
Droducts wus safe, when in fact said exposure was extremely hazardous lo health and human life,
With said knowledge, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, opted to research,
manufacture, fabricate, design, modify, label, assemble, distribute, loase, buy, offer for sale,
supply, sell, inspect, service, install, contract for installation, repair, market, warrant, re-brand,
manufacture for others, package and advertise said asbestos and asbestos-containing products
without attempting to protect decedent from or warn decedent of, the high risk of injury or death
resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, Rather than attempting to
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL. INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 7Ce Ya Aw ko dD
protect decedent from, or warn decedent of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from
exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, intentionally failed to reveal their knowledge of said risk, and consciously and
actively concealed and suppressed said knowledge from decedent and members of the general
public, thus impliedly representing to decedent and members of the general public that asbestos
and asbestos-containing products were safe for all reasonably foreseeable uses. Each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, engaged in this conduct and made these implied representations with
the knowledge of the falsity of said implied representations. This conduct of each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, was motivated by the financial interest of said each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, in the continuing, uninterrupted research, design, modification,
manufactute, fabrication, labeling, assembly, distribution, lease, purchase, offer for sale, supply,
| sale, inspection, installation, contracting for installation, repair, marketing, warranting, re-
branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of asbestos and asbestos-containing
products, In pursuance of said financial motivation, each Defendant, inchiding CBS Corporation,
consciously disregarded the safety of decedent and in fact were consciously willing and intended to
‘peimit asbestos and asbestos-containing products to cause injury to decedent and induced persons
to work with and be exposed thereto, including decedent. Each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, impliedly warranted their asbestos and asbestos-containing products to be safe for
their intended use, but that their asbestos and asbestos-containing products created an
unreasonable risk of bodily harm to decedent. Plaintiffs further allege his injuries are a result of
‘cumulative exposure to asbestos «nd various asbestos-containing products mam
fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, modified, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled,
distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed,
contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others,
packaged and advertised by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, and that decedent nor
anyone cannot identify precisely which asbestos or asbestos-containing products caused the
injuries complained of herein. Decedent relied upon each Defendant's, including CBS
‘Corporation, representations, lack of wamings, and implied warranties of fitness of asbestos and
their asbestos-containing products. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result thereof, decedent
has been injured permanently as alleged herein, At the aforementioned time when each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, tested or
failed to test, inadequately wamed o failed to war, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased,
bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation,
repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged and advertised the
said asbestos and asbestos-containing products, as herein above set forth, each Defendant,
| inchiding CBS Corporation, expressly and impliedly represented to members of the general
public, including the purchasers and users of said product, and other “decedent,” including the
decedent herein and his employers, that asbestos and asbestos-containing products, were of
merchantable quality, and safe for the use for which they were intended. The purchasers and users
of said asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including the décedent and his employers, relied
‘upon said representations of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, in the selection,
purchase and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Said represontations by each
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, were false and untrue, and cach Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, knew at the time they were untrue, in that the asbestos and asbestos-containing
products were not safe for their intended use, nor were they of merchantable quality as represented
by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, in that asbestos and asbestos-containing products
have very dangerous properties and defects whereby said products cause asbestosis, other lung
damages and cancer, and have other defects that cause injury and damage to the users of said
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 8products thereby threatening the health and life of said persons including decedent herein, At all
times pertinent hereto, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, owed decedent a duty, as
provided for in Section 1708, 1709 and 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of California, to
abstain from injuring the person, property or rights of the decedent. When a duty to act was
imposed, as set forth herein, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did do the acts and
omissions in violation of that duty, thereby causing injury to the deccdent as is more fully set forth
herein, Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1709 (Deceit) and Section
1710 Fraud) and, more specifically, included suggestions of fact which were not true end which
each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did not believe to be true; assertions of fact which
‘were not true and which each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, had no reasonable ground
for believing to be true, and the suppression of fact when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are
more fully set forth herein; the violation of any one such duty gave rise to a cause of action for
violation of the rights of the decedent as provided for in the aforementioned Civil Code sections.
Since on or before 1930, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, have known and have
possessed the true facts of medical and scientific data and other knowledge which clearly indicated
that its asbestos and asbestos-containing products were and are hazardous to the health and safety
of decedent, and others in decedent's position working in close proximity with such materials.
Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, has known of the dangerous propensities of other of
the aforementioned materials and products since before that time. With intent to deceive decedent,
and others in decedent's position, and with intent that he and such others should be and remain
ignorant of such facts with intent to induce decedent and such others to alter his and their positions
to his and their injury and/or risk and in order to gain advantages, the following acts occurred:
| Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did not label any of the its asbestos-containing
materials and products regarding the hazards of such materials and products to the health and
safety of decedents and others in decedents? position working in close proximity with such
materials. By not labeling such materials as to their said hazards, each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, caused to be suggested as a fact to decedent that it was safe for decedent to work in
close proximity to such materials when in fact it was not true and each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, did not believe it to be true; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation,
suppressed information relating to the danger of use of the aforementioned materials by requesting
the suppression of information to the decedent and the general public conceming the dangerous
nature of the aforementioned materials to workers, by not allowing such information to be
disseminated in a manner which would given general notice to the public and knowledge of the
hazardous nature thereof when defendant, their “alternate entities,” , were bound to disclose such
information; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, sold the aforementioned products and
materials to decedent’s employer and others without advising decedent and others of the dangers
of use of such materials to persons working in close proximity thereto when each Defendant,
including CBS Corporatien, knew of such dangers, and had a duty to disclose such dangers all as
set forth herein. By said conduct, each Defendant, iucluding CBS Corporation, caused to be
positively asserted to decedent that which was not true and that which each Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, had no reasonable ground for believing to be true, to wit, thet it was safe for
decedent to work in close proximity to such materials; each Defendant, including CBS.
Comporation, suppressed from decedent medical and scientific data and knowledge of the results
of studies including, but not limited to, the information and knowledge of the contents of the
Lanza report. Although bound to disclose it, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , and
other members of industry trade groups and organizations, including the IHF, influenced A. J.
Lanza to change his report, the altered version of which was published in Public Healt Reports,
Volume 50 at page 1 in 1935, thereby causing decedent and others to be and remain ignorant
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 9Cm an ween ne
Ss
thereof, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, caused Asbestos Magazine, a widely
disseminated trade journal, to omit mention of danger, thereby lessening the probability of notice
of danger to the users thereof, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, belonged to,
participated in, and financially supported the Asbestos Textile Institute, Industrial Hygiene
Foundation, and other industry organizations which, for and on behalf of each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, actively promoted the suppression of information of danger to users
of the aforementioned products and materials, thereby misleading deccdent by the suggestions and
deceptions set forth above in this cause of action. The Dust Control Committee, which changed its
name to the Air Hygiene Committee, of the Asbestos Textile Institute was specifically enlisted to
study the subject of dust control. Discussions in this committee were held many times regarding
‘the dangers inherent in asbestos and the dangers which arise from the lack of control of dust, and
such information was suppressed from public dissemination from 1946 to a date unknown to
decedent at this time; Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at Asbestos
and Thetford mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of workers at Raybestos-Manhattan plants in
Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew and
possessed medical and scientific information of the connection between inhalation of asbestos
fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated through the Asbestos Textile Institute
and other industry organizations to all other Defendants, including CBS Corporation, herein,
Between 1942 and 1950, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, acquired medical and
scientific information of the connection between inhalation of asbestos fibers and cancer, which
information was disseminated through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry
“organizations to defendant herein, Thereby, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation,
‘suggested to the public as a fact that which is not true and disseminated other facts likely to
mislead decedent, Such facts did mislead decedent and others by withholding the afore-described
medical and scientific data and other knowledge and by not giving decedent the true facts
concerning such knowledge of danger, which each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was
bound to disclose; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, failed to warn decedent and
others of the nature of said materials which were dangerous when breathed and which could cause
pathological effects without noticeable trauma, despite the fact that each Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, possessed knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that said materials were
‘dangerous and a threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith; each Defendant,
including CBS Corporation, failed to provide decedent with information concerning adequate
protective masks and other equipment devised to be used when applying and installing the
products of the each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , , despite knowing that such
protective measures were necessary, and that they were under a duty to disclose that such materials
were dangerous and would result in injury to the decedent and others applying and installing such
material; cach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, when under a duty to so disclose,
concealed from decedent the true nature of the industrial exposure of decedent and knew that
decedent and anyone similarly situated, upon inhalation of asbestos would, in time, develop
irreversible conditions of preumoconiosis, asbestosis and/or cancer. each Defendant, including
CBS Corporation, also concealed from decedent and others that harmful materials to which they
‘were exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma; each Defendant,
: including CBS Corporation, failed to provide information of the true nature of the hazards of
| asbestos materials and that exposure to these materials would cause pathological effects without
noticeable trauma to the public, including buyers, users, and physicians employed by decedent and
decedent’s employers so that said physicians could examine, diagnose and treat decedent and
others who were exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, were under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading; and each
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEPENDANT Page 10Ce w ane ee we
3S
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, failed to provide adequate information to physicians and
surgeons retained by decedent’s employers and their predecessor companies, for purposes of
making physical exantinations of decedent and other employees as to the irue nature of the risk of
such materials and exposure thereto when they in fact possessed such information and had a duty
to disclose it, Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, willfully failed and omitted ta
complete and file First Report of Occupational Injury of Illness regarding decedent’s injuries, as
required by law, and did willfully fail and omit to file report of injury and occupational disease
with the State of California. Decedent was in the class of persons with respect to whom a duty was
owed to file suck reports and who would have been protected thereby if the fact of danger from
products complained of had become known. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation,
having such aforementioned knowledge, and the duty to inform decedent about the true facts, and
knowing the decedent did not possess such knowledge and would breathe such material
innocently, acted falsely and fraudulently and with full intent to cause decedent to remain unaware
of the true facts and to induce decedent to work in a dangerous environment, all in violation of
Sections 1708, 1709, 1710, and 1711 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was a successor, successor-in-business, assign,
predecessor, predecessor-in-business, parent, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the
whole or partial owner of an entity causing certain asbestos-containing insulation, other building
materials, products and toxic substances to be constructed, installed, maintained, used, replaced,
repaired and/or removed on the respective premises owned, leased, maintained, managed and/or
controlled by them. Said entities shall hereinafter collectively be called “alternate entities.” Each
Defendant, including CBS Corporation, is liable for the tortious conduct of each successor,
successor-in-business, assign, predecessor-in-business, parent, subsidiary, whole or partial owner,
or wholly or partially owned entity that caused the presence as aforesaid of said asbestos-
containing insulation and other toxic substances. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation,
owned, leased, maintained, managed, and/or controlled various jobsites where decedent was
present. Prior to and at said times and places, Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation,
caused certain asbestos-containing materials, other building materials, products and toxic
substances to be constructed, installed, disturbed, maintained, used, supplied, replaced, repaired
and/or removed on each of the aforesaid respective premises, by their own workers and/or by
various contractors and/or subcontractors, and caused the release of dangerous quantities of toxic
asbestos fibers and other toxic substances into the ambient air and thereby created a hazardous and
unsafe condition to decedent and other persons exposed to said asbestos fibers and toxic
substances while present at said premises. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew or
in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, that the foregoing conditions
and activities, specifically including, but not limited to, the existence, installation, and removal of
asbestos and asbestos-containing products, created a dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe conditions
and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to decedent and other workers or persons $0
exposed present on each of the aforesaid respective premises, Such conditions and activities, as
‘well as the specific hazards and dangers associated with such conditions and activities, were
unknown and unknowable to decedent and decedeat’s employers. Each Defendant, including CBS
Corporation, failed to adequately war and/or to provide proper safety equipment to decedent and
decedent’s cmployers causing decedent to be exposed to respirable asbestos
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Cbjection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad, Without waiving
said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: Denzil Scott, Nancy Scott, Joanne Wolfarth, Michael
‘Scott, Robrert Scott, Thomas Scott, Mary Sobolik (all plaintiffs c/o Keller, Fishback & Jackson
LLP), Victor Trinchese, c/o Brayton Purcell, Novato, CA, Steven Martin, c/o Brayton Purcell,
PLAINTIFFS” SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 11Novato, CA, Ray Rachetti, Frank Vassalo, Person Most Knowledeable from all defendants listed
in the Complaint filed herein, decedent’s employers, decedent’s co-workers at the above-listed job
sites. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and
| investigation continue.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six, Plaintiffs’
investigation and discovery are continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney
work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are
continuing.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attorney
‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding
such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number twenty.
Additionally, defendant had specific prior knowledge that there was a high risk of injury or death
resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos products, including but not limited to,
amesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. Said knowledge was obtained, in part, from scientific
studies, government data, and medical data to which defendants had access, as well as scientific
studies performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance of, said defendants, and which
knowledge was obtained by said defendants on or before 1933, and thereafter. On or before 1933,
and thereafter, defendant was aware that users of asbestos and asbestos products, as well as
members of the general public who would be exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, had no
knowledge or information indicating that asbestos could cause injury, and said defendants knew
‘that the users of asbestos and asbestos products, would assume, and in face did assume, that
exposure to asbestos and asbestos products was safe, when in fact said exposure was extremely
hazardous to human life. With said knowledge, defendant opted to manufacture and distribute
said asbestos and asbestos products without attempting to protect users from or warn users of, the
high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products. Rather than
attempting to protect users and workers from, or warn workers and users of, the high risk of injury
or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products, defendants intentionally failed
| to reveal their knowledge of said risk, fraudulently, consciously and actively conceaied and
suppressed said knowledge from members of the general public that asbestos and asbestos
| products were unsafe for all reasonably foreseeable use, with the knowledge of the falsity of said
implied representations. The above referenced conduct of defendant was motivated by the
financial interest of said defendants in the continuing, uninterrupted distribution, sale, supply and
marketing of asbestos and asbestos products. In pursuance of said financial motivation, said
defendants consciously disregarded the safety of the users of, and persons exposed to, esbestos and
asbestos products, and were in fact, consciously willing to permit asbestos and asbestos products
to cause injury to workers and other users thereof, and persons exposed thereto, including plaintiff.
‘The above referenced conduct of defendant was and is vile, base, willful, malicious, fraudulent,
oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and bealth of
workers exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, including plaintiff. Plaintiffs also identify
numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards associated with exposure ta asbestos
which have appeared in the medicel and scientific literature since the tum of the twentieth century,
and have also been summerized in various publications. Two texts that contain summaries and/or
bibliographies of this literature are; Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, Barry I. Cattleman,
Prentice-Hall Law and Business, 1990 and Sourcebook of Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and
PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 12Coe a aw kD
Engineering Aspects, George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press, Vol. 1, 1980,
Vol. 2, 1986. Plaintiff also
Preview
ld BR FRANK D. POND (BAR NO. 126191) ANN I. PARK (BAR NO. 130394} KEVIN D. JAMISON (BAR NO. 222105) POND NORTH LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-6170 Facsimile: (213) 623-3594 Attorneys for Defendant CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, | ika Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, fka Westinghouse Electric Corporation ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco MAY 14 2007 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk BY: JUDITH NUNEZ - Deputy Clefk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA — FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as - Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT, Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH; MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT; MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE through TENTH DOE, inclusive, Plaintiffs, vs. AC. AND §, INC., et al.. ~ Defendants. Case No: CGC-05-443236 EXHIBITS A THROUGH C TO DECLARATION OF ANN I. PARK IN SUPPORT OF CBS CORPORATION’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL AGAINST PLAINTIFFS Hearing: Date: May 21, 2007 Time: 10:30 a.m. Dept.: 610 . Case Filed: July 20, 2005 Trial Date: July 16, 2007 EXHIBITS A THROUGH C TO DECLARATION OF ANN I. PARK IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO COMPEL 4320.1265.248705.1EXHIBIT AexHipiT_fx_ Stephen M. Fishback (State Bar No. 191646) KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP 28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201 ‘Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: $18.879.8033 Facsimile: 818.292:8891 Atlomeys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION) NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as ‘Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT, Case No. 443236 Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH; MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT; MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE | INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY through TENTH DOE, inclusive, DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION Plaintiffs, vs. AC AND §, INC., et al. Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant CBS CORPORATION RESPONDING PARTY: _ Plaintiffs NANCY MARIE SCOTT, JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH, MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT, ROBERT DAVID SCOTT, THOMAS CARY SCOTT, MARY DENISE SOBOLIK ‘SET NUMBER: SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED ONE Plaintiffs hereby respond to the Special Interrogatories propounded by defendant CBS CORPORATION as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMEN’ Plaintiffs’ responses are based upon information in plaintiffs’ possession at the time of answering these interrogatories. Plaintiffs have consulted all sources reasonably available in PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page Iwey Awe owe cS preparing these responses. However, discovery and investigation in this action are continuing. Plaintiffs’ discovery and investigation will continue to and throughout the trial of the above~ captioned action. Plaintiffs and their attomeys have not fully completed their investigation of the facts related to this case, have uot completed their discovery ia this action and have not completed their preparation for trial. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and amend these responses if' plaintiff discovers any additional responsive information. ‘The following responses are based upon plaintiffs’ understanding of the meaning of each of the interrogatories. If propounding party asserts an interpretation of any interrogatory which diffors from plaintiffs’ understanding of the meaning of such interrogatory, then any response contained herein as to any such interrogatory is without prejudice to plaintiff's tight to further object or respond thereto. Any response by plaintiffs to these interrogatories over objection does not concede the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility of any information sought by the discovery requests or any responses thereto. These responses are made subject to and without waiver of any questions or objections as to the competency, relevancy, materidlity, privilege, or admissibility of evidence, documents, or information referred to herein, or the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding, including trial. GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following objections are incorporated by reference into each interrogatory response: 1, _ Plaintiffs object to the extent that the information requested is equally or more available to the propounding party than responding party; 2. Plaintiffs object to the extent these interrogatories posed herein are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and speculative due to the unlimited scope of the request regarding time and location; 3. Plaintifis object to the extent that these interrogatories can only produce information irrelevant to the subject matter of the above-captioned action, and not reasonably calculated to lead | to discovery of admissible evidence, and are therefore burdensome, oppressive, and harassing; 4, Plaintiffs object to the extent these interrogatories request information protected by attomey work product and attomey-client privilege; 5. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, so as to be oppressive and unduly burdensome; 6. _ Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they violate Superior Court General Orders-Asbestos; 7. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they call for expert opinion testimony in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, et seq, and/or call. fora legal conclusion, which is not the proper subject of discovery; 8. _ Plaintifis object to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential or private information, which shall not be disclosed pursuant to the California Constitution, Article 1, and the Constitution of the United States of America: 9. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seck fo impose greater obligations than those permitted under the California Code of Civil Procedure; 10, Plaintiffs object to the exteut that these interrogatories seck information protected by plaintif’s federal, state, and common law rights of privacy; and 11, Plaintiffs further object to the extent that these interrogatoriés call for the disclosure of | expert information. Without waiving these objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 2RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 1; Objection, attomey client privilege, attorney ‘work product privilege, Without waiving said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: attomeys of record, their agents and/or assignees. : RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attorney ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving said objection, plaintifis respond as follows: plaintiffs have reviewed relevant materials and cousulted all reasonable sources to obtain information responsive to requests in conformance with the obligations mandated by law and equity. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and investigation continue. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Objection, sitomey-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and investigation continue. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Objection, altomey-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: decedent’s exposure to asbestos may have included, but is not limited to: asbestos-containing insulation materials, asbestos-containing gaskets, asbestos-containing packing, asbestos-containing wire/cable, asbestos-containing motors, asbestos- containing wallboard, asbestos-containing phenolic resins; asbestos-containing Micarta, asbestos- containing switches, asbestos-containing engines, asbestos-containing switch boxes, asbestos- | containing circuit boards, asbestos-containing paper, asbestos-containing electrical products and power supplies and other chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite asbestos-containing materials supplied by defendant. Plaintiff is continuing to research the specific brand-names, dates of exposure, packaging, and labeling of all asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was exposed. Due to a number of years over which plaintiff's exposure occurred and the fact that plaintiff's discovery is ongoing, plaintiff has not yet been able to specify some brand names, dates of exposure, packaging and labeling of all products. Additionally, decedent was exposed to defendant's asbestos and asbestos-containing materials used by others working in close proximity to plaintiff of a kind, type, and variety that plaintiffs may not be aware. Decedent's exposure to defendant's asbestos and asbestos-containing products, resulting from decedent's and others? manipulation, installing, cutting, splicing, hammering, removing, or otherwise disturbing defendant's asbestos products, occurred on a regular basis throughout the duration of decedent's working career at job sites including, U.S. Navy, September 24, 1940- April 4, 1960, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California, 1960-1973, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 1960-1973, Alameda Neval Air Station, Alameda, California, 1973-1980, Allan Instrument Company, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1981-1982. Gyro Marine Instrument, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1982-1985, Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and investigation continue. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad. Without waiving said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: Denzil Scott, Nancy Scott, Joanne Wolfarth, Michael Scott, Robert Scott, Thomas Scott, Mary Sobolik (all plaintiffs c/o Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP), Victor Trinchese, c/o Brayton Purcell, Novato, CA, Steven Martin, c/o Brayton Purcell, PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 3rs Cea aA an urn Novato, CA, Ray Rachetti, Frank Vassalo, Person Most Knowledeable - CBS Corporation, decedent’s employers, decedent’s co-workers at the above-listed job sites. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and investigation continue. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO, 6: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attorney Wwork product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. Plaintiff is currently not in possession of any documents other than those that previously produced to defendants. Document responsive to this request are oqually available to defendant and/or in possession, custody or control of defendant or another party or third party, previously produced to defendants, or subject to expert witness disclosure rales as set forth in CCP section 2034, et seq. Also, documents responsive to this request may be subject to copyright or trademark rales and regulations, and may not be produced. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing . NSE TO INTERR' tY NO. 8: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number four. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number five. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Objection, attomey-cliont privilege, attorney ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Not such objections, plaintifis respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six. Plaintiffs? investigation and discovery are continuing, TO INTERROG, NO. 11: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: .yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery ate continuing . RESPONSE TQ INTERROGATORY NG. 12: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound, Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows:’ see response to interrogatory number four. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number five. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 4RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey ‘werk produet privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound, Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six. Plaintiffs” investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs zespond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery arc contiming . RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number four. Plaintiffs” investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffS respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number five. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six. Plaintiffs” investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding suk objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attomey work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was ‘the successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling, assembling, distributing, easing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, sellin, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain product, namely asbestos, and other products containing asbestos. Bach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, is liable for the tortious conduct of each successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, of wholly or partially owned entity, or entity that it was a member of, or funded, that researched, studied, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others and advertised a certain product, namely asbestos, and other products containing asbestos, Each Defendant, including CBS PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 5Corporation, was and/or are engaged in the business of researching, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain product, namely asbestos and other products containing asbestos, At all times herein mentioned, Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, tested or failed to test, abated or failed ‘to abate, warned or failed to wam of the health hazards, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged and advertised, a certain product, namely asbestos, and other products containing asbestos, in that said products caused personal injuries to users, consumers, workers, bystanders and others, including the decedent herein, while being used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable, thereby rendering said products unsafe and dangerous for use by decedent. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, had a duty to exercise due care in the pursuance of the activities mentioned above and Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation; breached said duty of due care. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew, or should have known, and intended that the aforementioned asbestos and products containing asbestos would be transported by truck, rail, ship and other common carriers, that in the shipping process the products would break, crumble or be otherwise damaged; and/or that such products would be used for insulation, construction, plastering, fireproofing, soundproofing, automotive, aircraft and/or other applications, including, but not limited to sawing, chipping, hammering, scraping, sanding, breaking, removal, “tip-out,” and other manipulation, resulting in the release of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through such foreseeable use and/or handling “decedent,” including decedent herein, would use or be in proximity to and exposed to said asbestos fibers. Plaintiff has used, handled or been otherwise exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products referred to herein in a manner that was reasonably foresceable. Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products occurred at various locations. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , decedent’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused severe and permanent injury to the decedent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that progressive lung disease, cancer and/or other serious diseases are caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers without perceptible trauma and that said disease results from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products over a period of time. Plaintiff suffers from a condition related to exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Plaintiff was not aware at the time of exposure that asbestos or asbestos-containing products presented any risk of injury and/or disease, As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, decedent has suffered permanent injuries, death and/or future increased risk of injuries to his person, body and health, including, but not limited to, asbestosis, other lung damage, and cancer, and the mental and emotional distress attendant thereto, from the effect of exposure to asbestos fibers, all to his general damage. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, plaintiff has incurred liability for physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospices, x-rays and other medical treatment, the true and exact amount thereof being unknown to plaintiff at this time. As a further dircct and proximate result of the said conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, decedent has incurred, loss of income, wages, profits and commissions, a diminishment of earning potential, and other pecuniary losses, the full nature and extent of which are not yet known to plaintiffs, Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 6| forming the basis of plaintiffs’ claims. The herein-described conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was and is willfal, malicious, fraudulent, outrageous and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and health of decedents. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew an¢ intended that the above-referenced asbestos and asbestos-containing products would be used by the purchaser or user or bystander without inspection for defects therein or in any of their component parts and without knowledge of the hazards involved in such use, Said asbestos and asbestos-containing products were defective and unsafe for their intended purpose in that the inhalation of asbestos fibers causes serious discase and/or death, The defect existed in the ssid products at the time they left the possession of cach Defendant, including CBS Corporation. Said products did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung damage, and/or cancer “decedent,” including decedent herein, while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, thereby rendering the same defective, unsafe and dangerous for use. Plaintiff did not know of the substantial danger of using said products, Said dangers were not readily recognizable by decedent. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, further failed to adequately warn of the tisks to which decedent and others similarly situated were exposed. Said asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or supplied by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, with which decedent worked with and/or around were not substantially nor improperly altered from that of their original manufacture, sale, or supply not used in an unintended or unforeseeable fashion. The gravit poy of the potential harm resulting for the use of each Defendants’, including CBS Corporation’s, defective products as described in this ‘cause of action, and the likelihood such harm would occur, outweighed the cost of feasible alternative designs, including providing adequate warning of such potential harm, including asbestos-related disease, and any perceived disadvantage of an alternative design. In researching, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, testing or failing to test, warning or failing to ‘warn, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling, inspeoting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re~ branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising asbestos and asbestos-containing products, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did so with conscious disregard for the safety of decedent who came in contact with said asbestos and asbestos-containing products, in that said each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, had prior knowledge that there was a substantial risk of injury ot death resulting from exposure to asbestos or asl products, including, but not limited to, asbestosis, other lung damages and cancer. Said knowledge ‘was obtained, in part, from scientific studies performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance of, said cach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, and which knowledge was obtained by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, on or before 1930, and thereafter. On or before 1930, and thereafter, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was aware that members of the general public and decedent who would come in contact with their asbestos and asbestos-containing products, had no knowledge or information indicating that asbestos or asbestos-containing products could cause injury, and each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew that members of the general public decedent who came in contact with asbestos and asbestos-containing products, would assume, and in fact did assume, that exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing Droducts wus safe, when in fact said exposure was extremely hazardous lo health and human life, With said knowledge, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, opted to research, manufacture, fabricate, design, modify, label, assemble, distribute, loase, buy, offer for sale, supply, sell, inspect, service, install, contract for installation, repair, market, warrant, re-brand, manufacture for others, package and advertise said asbestos and asbestos-containing products without attempting to protect decedent from or warn decedent of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, Rather than attempting to PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL. INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 7Ce Ya Aw ko dD protect decedent from, or warn decedent of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, intentionally failed to reveal their knowledge of said risk, and consciously and actively concealed and suppressed said knowledge from decedent and members of the general public, thus impliedly representing to decedent and members of the general public that asbestos and asbestos-containing products were safe for all reasonably foreseeable uses. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, engaged in this conduct and made these implied representations with the knowledge of the falsity of said implied representations. This conduct of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was motivated by the financial interest of said each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, in the continuing, uninterrupted research, design, modification, manufactute, fabrication, labeling, assembly, distribution, lease, purchase, offer for sale, supply, | sale, inspection, installation, contracting for installation, repair, marketing, warranting, re- branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, In pursuance of said financial motivation, each Defendant, inchiding CBS Corporation, consciously disregarded the safety of decedent and in fact were consciously willing and intended to ‘peimit asbestos and asbestos-containing products to cause injury to decedent and induced persons to work with and be exposed thereto, including decedent. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, impliedly warranted their asbestos and asbestos-containing products to be safe for their intended use, but that their asbestos and asbestos-containing products created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to decedent. Plaintiffs further allege his injuries are a result of ‘cumulative exposure to asbestos «nd various asbestos-containing products mam fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, modified, inadequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged and advertised by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, and that decedent nor anyone cannot identify precisely which asbestos or asbestos-containing products caused the injuries complained of herein. Decedent relied upon each Defendant's, including CBS ‘Corporation, representations, lack of wamings, and implied warranties of fitness of asbestos and their asbestos-containing products. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result thereof, decedent has been injured permanently as alleged herein, At the aforementioned time when each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, tested or failed to test, inadequately wamed o failed to war, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged and advertised the said asbestos and asbestos-containing products, as herein above set forth, each Defendant, | inchiding CBS Corporation, expressly and impliedly represented to members of the general public, including the purchasers and users of said product, and other “decedent,” including the decedent herein and his employers, that asbestos and asbestos-containing products, were of merchantable quality, and safe for the use for which they were intended. The purchasers and users of said asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including the décedent and his employers, relied ‘upon said representations of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, in the selection, purchase and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Said represontations by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, were false and untrue, and cach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew at the time they were untrue, in that the asbestos and asbestos-containing products were not safe for their intended use, nor were they of merchantable quality as represented by each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, in that asbestos and asbestos-containing products have very dangerous properties and defects whereby said products cause asbestosis, other lung damages and cancer, and have other defects that cause injury and damage to the users of said PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 8products thereby threatening the health and life of said persons including decedent herein, At all times pertinent hereto, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, owed decedent a duty, as provided for in Section 1708, 1709 and 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of California, to abstain from injuring the person, property or rights of the decedent. When a duty to act was imposed, as set forth herein, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did do the acts and omissions in violation of that duty, thereby causing injury to the deccdent as is more fully set forth herein, Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1709 (Deceit) and Section 1710 Fraud) and, more specifically, included suggestions of fact which were not true end which each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did not believe to be true; assertions of fact which ‘were not true and which each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, had no reasonable ground for believing to be true, and the suppression of fact when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are more fully set forth herein; the violation of any one such duty gave rise to a cause of action for violation of the rights of the decedent as provided for in the aforementioned Civil Code sections. Since on or before 1930, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, have known and have possessed the true facts of medical and scientific data and other knowledge which clearly indicated that its asbestos and asbestos-containing products were and are hazardous to the health and safety of decedent, and others in decedent's position working in close proximity with such materials. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, has known of the dangerous propensities of other of the aforementioned materials and products since before that time. With intent to deceive decedent, and others in decedent's position, and with intent that he and such others should be and remain ignorant of such facts with intent to induce decedent and such others to alter his and their positions to his and their injury and/or risk and in order to gain advantages, the following acts occurred: | Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did not label any of the its asbestos-containing materials and products regarding the hazards of such materials and products to the health and safety of decedents and others in decedents? position working in close proximity with such materials. By not labeling such materials as to their said hazards, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, caused to be suggested as a fact to decedent that it was safe for decedent to work in close proximity to such materials when in fact it was not true and each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, did not believe it to be true; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, suppressed information relating to the danger of use of the aforementioned materials by requesting the suppression of information to the decedent and the general public conceming the dangerous nature of the aforementioned materials to workers, by not allowing such information to be disseminated in a manner which would given general notice to the public and knowledge of the hazardous nature thereof when defendant, their “alternate entities,” , were bound to disclose such information; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, sold the aforementioned products and materials to decedent’s employer and others without advising decedent and others of the dangers of use of such materials to persons working in close proximity thereto when each Defendant, including CBS Corporatien, knew of such dangers, and had a duty to disclose such dangers all as set forth herein. By said conduct, each Defendant, iucluding CBS Corporation, caused to be positively asserted to decedent that which was not true and that which each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, had no reasonable ground for believing to be true, to wit, thet it was safe for decedent to work in close proximity to such materials; each Defendant, including CBS. Comporation, suppressed from decedent medical and scientific data and knowledge of the results of studies including, but not limited to, the information and knowledge of the contents of the Lanza report. Although bound to disclose it, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , and other members of industry trade groups and organizations, including the IHF, influenced A. J. Lanza to change his report, the altered version of which was published in Public Healt Reports, Volume 50 at page 1 in 1935, thereby causing decedent and others to be and remain ignorant PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 9Cm an ween ne Ss thereof, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, caused Asbestos Magazine, a widely disseminated trade journal, to omit mention of danger, thereby lessening the probability of notice of danger to the users thereof, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, belonged to, participated in, and financially supported the Asbestos Textile Institute, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, and other industry organizations which, for and on behalf of each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, actively promoted the suppression of information of danger to users of the aforementioned products and materials, thereby misleading deccdent by the suggestions and deceptions set forth above in this cause of action. The Dust Control Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee, of the Asbestos Textile Institute was specifically enlisted to study the subject of dust control. Discussions in this committee were held many times regarding ‘the dangers inherent in asbestos and the dangers which arise from the lack of control of dust, and such information was suppressed from public dissemination from 1946 to a date unknown to decedent at this time; Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at Asbestos and Thetford mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of workers at Raybestos-Manhattan plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection between inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other Defendants, including CBS Corporation, herein, Between 1942 and 1950, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, acquired medical and scientific information of the connection between inhalation of asbestos fibers and cancer, which information was disseminated through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry “organizations to defendant herein, Thereby, each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, ‘suggested to the public as a fact that which is not true and disseminated other facts likely to mislead decedent, Such facts did mislead decedent and others by withholding the afore-described medical and scientific data and other knowledge and by not giving decedent the true facts concerning such knowledge of danger, which each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was bound to disclose; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, failed to warn decedent and others of the nature of said materials which were dangerous when breathed and which could cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma, despite the fact that each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, possessed knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that said materials were ‘dangerous and a threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith; each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, failed to provide decedent with information concerning adequate protective masks and other equipment devised to be used when applying and installing the products of the each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, , , despite knowing that such protective measures were necessary, and that they were under a duty to disclose that such materials were dangerous and would result in injury to the decedent and others applying and installing such material; cach Defendant, including CBS Corporation, when under a duty to so disclose, concealed from decedent the true nature of the industrial exposure of decedent and knew that decedent and anyone similarly situated, upon inhalation of asbestos would, in time, develop irreversible conditions of preumoconiosis, asbestosis and/or cancer. each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, also concealed from decedent and others that harmful materials to which they ‘were exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma; each Defendant, : including CBS Corporation, failed to provide information of the true nature of the hazards of | asbestos materials and that exposure to these materials would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the public, including buyers, users, and physicians employed by decedent and decedent’s employers so that said physicians could examine, diagnose and treat decedent and others who were exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, were under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading; and each PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEPENDANT Page 10Ce w ane ee we 3S Defendant, including CBS Corporation, failed to provide adequate information to physicians and surgeons retained by decedent’s employers and their predecessor companies, for purposes of making physical exantinations of decedent and other employees as to the irue nature of the risk of such materials and exposure thereto when they in fact possessed such information and had a duty to disclose it, Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, willfully failed and omitted ta complete and file First Report of Occupational Injury of Illness regarding decedent’s injuries, as required by law, and did willfully fail and omit to file report of injury and occupational disease with the State of California. Decedent was in the class of persons with respect to whom a duty was owed to file suck reports and who would have been protected thereby if the fact of danger from products complained of had become known. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, having such aforementioned knowledge, and the duty to inform decedent about the true facts, and knowing the decedent did not possess such knowledge and would breathe such material innocently, acted falsely and fraudulently and with full intent to cause decedent to remain unaware of the true facts and to induce decedent to work in a dangerous environment, all in violation of Sections 1708, 1709, 1710, and 1711 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, was a successor, successor-in-business, assign, predecessor, predecessor-in-business, parent, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of an entity causing certain asbestos-containing insulation, other building materials, products and toxic substances to be constructed, installed, maintained, used, replaced, repaired and/or removed on the respective premises owned, leased, maintained, managed and/or controlled by them. Said entities shall hereinafter collectively be called “alternate entities.” Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, is liable for the tortious conduct of each successor, successor-in-business, assign, predecessor-in-business, parent, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity that caused the presence as aforesaid of said asbestos- containing insulation and other toxic substances. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, owned, leased, maintained, managed, and/or controlled various jobsites where decedent was present. Prior to and at said times and places, Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, caused certain asbestos-containing materials, other building materials, products and toxic substances to be constructed, installed, disturbed, maintained, used, supplied, replaced, repaired and/or removed on each of the aforesaid respective premises, by their own workers and/or by various contractors and/or subcontractors, and caused the release of dangerous quantities of toxic asbestos fibers and other toxic substances into the ambient air and thereby created a hazardous and unsafe condition to decedent and other persons exposed to said asbestos fibers and toxic substances while present at said premises. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, knew or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, that the foregoing conditions and activities, specifically including, but not limited to, the existence, installation, and removal of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, created a dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe conditions and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to decedent and other workers or persons $0 exposed present on each of the aforesaid respective premises, Such conditions and activities, as ‘well as the specific hazards and dangers associated with such conditions and activities, were unknown and unknowable to decedent and decedeat’s employers. Each Defendant, including CBS Corporation, failed to adequately war and/or to provide proper safety equipment to decedent and decedent’s cmployers causing decedent to be exposed to respirable asbestos RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Cbjection, attomey-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, compound, and extremely overbroad, Without waiving said objection, plaintiffs respond as follows: Denzil Scott, Nancy Scott, Joanne Wolfarth, Michael ‘Scott, Robrert Scott, Thomas Scott, Mary Sobolik (all plaintiffs c/o Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP), Victor Trinchese, c/o Brayton Purcell, Novato, CA, Steven Martin, c/o Brayton Purcell, PLAINTIFFS” SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 11Novato, CA, Ray Rachetti, Frank Vassalo, Person Most Knowledeable from all defendants listed in the Complaint filed herein, decedent’s employers, decedent’s co-workers at the above-listed job sites. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery and | investigation continue. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attomey ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number six, Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Objection, attomey-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: yes. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery are continuing. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Objection, attorney-client privilege, attorney ‘work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, extremely overbroad, and compound. Notwithstanding such objections, plaintiffs respond as follows: see response to interrogatory number twenty. Additionally, defendant had specific prior knowledge that there was a high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos products, including but not limited to, amesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. Said knowledge was obtained, in part, from scientific studies, government data, and medical data to which defendants had access, as well as scientific studies performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance of, said defendants, and which knowledge was obtained by said defendants on or before 1933, and thereafter. On or before 1933, and thereafter, defendant was aware that users of asbestos and asbestos products, as well as members of the general public who would be exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, had no knowledge or information indicating that asbestos could cause injury, and said defendants knew ‘that the users of asbestos and asbestos products, would assume, and in face did assume, that exposure to asbestos and asbestos products was safe, when in fact said exposure was extremely hazardous to human life. With said knowledge, defendant opted to manufacture and distribute said asbestos and asbestos products without attempting to protect users from or warn users of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products. Rather than attempting to protect users and workers from, or warn workers and users of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products, defendants intentionally failed | to reveal their knowledge of said risk, fraudulently, consciously and actively conceaied and suppressed said knowledge from members of the general public that asbestos and asbestos | products were unsafe for all reasonably foreseeable use, with the knowledge of the falsity of said implied representations. The above referenced conduct of defendant was motivated by the financial interest of said defendants in the continuing, uninterrupted distribution, sale, supply and marketing of asbestos and asbestos products. In pursuance of said financial motivation, said defendants consciously disregarded the safety of the users of, and persons exposed to, esbestos and asbestos products, and were in fact, consciously willing to permit asbestos and asbestos products to cause injury to workers and other users thereof, and persons exposed thereto, including plaintiff. ‘The above referenced conduct of defendant was and is vile, base, willful, malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and bealth of workers exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, including plaintiff. Plaintiffs also identify numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards associated with exposure ta asbestos which have appeared in the medicel and scientific literature since the tum of the twentieth century, and have also been summerized in various publications. Two texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of this literature are; Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, Barry I. Cattleman, Prentice-Hall Law and Business, 1990 and Sourcebook of Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and PLAINTIFFS" SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT Page 12Coe a aw kD Engineering Aspects, George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press, Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986. Plaintiff also