Motion-Secondary: NANCY MARIE SCOTT et al VS. AC AND S, INC. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                hea

co of ss of

MICHAEL J. ESTRADA (SBN 121439)

CHRISTY L. SHARP (SBN 203794) ELECTRONICALLY

VASQUEZ & ESTRADA FILED

Courthouse Square Superior Court of California,

1000 Fourth Street Suite 700 County of San Francisco

san Rafael, CA 94901

Telephone: (415) 453-0555 APR 02 2007

Facsimile: (415) 453-0549 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: JUANITA D. MURPHY

Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant
HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as

) CASE NO. CGC-05-443236
Successor-in-Interest te DENZIL SCOTT, )
Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH; ) EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT ) CHRISTY L. SHARP IN SUPPORT OF
DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT; ) DEFENDANT HILL BROTHERS
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE ) CHEMICAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
through TENTH DOE, inclusive, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
) Date: June 15, 2007 .
Plaintiffs, ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
) Dept: 302
Vs. ) Judge: Honorable Patrick J. Mahoney
)
AC AND 5, INC,, et al: ) Action Filed: July 20, 2005
) Trial Date: = Juty 16, 2007
Defendants. yo
)
)
)
)
Dated: March 29, 2007 VASQUEZ & ESTRADA

By:__/s/ Christy L. Sh.
CHRISTY L. SHARP

Attorneys for Defendant
HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY

EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF CHRISTY L. SHARP IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CASE NO, CGC-05-443236STEVEN M. HAROW!ITZ (Bar No. 71117)
STEPHEN M. TIGERMAN (Bar No. 112127)
RONALD K, HERRON (Bar No. 133936)

450 Sansome Street, 3"* Floor
San Francisco, Califomia 94111
Telephone (415) 788-3588
Facsimile (415) 788-1598

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as No. 05-443236
Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT,
Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH; PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT STANDARD INTERROGATORIES

PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANTS
(Wrongful Death)
Set 1

DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT;
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE
through TENTH DOE, inclusive,

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ACANDS, INC., et al,

2
>
2
2
>
>
?
2
>
)
2
>
}

‘Comes now plaintiff NANCY MARIE SCOTT, and responds to defendants’ wrongful
death interrogatories as follows. Please note that plaintiff has only just begun discovery in this
case and that discovery is continuing with respect io each interrogatory and sub-interrogatory. In
addition, plaintiff respectfully objects to each interrogatory and sub-intecrogatory insofar as it calls
for privileged work product or privileged attorney-client communication. Without waiving these
objections, plaintiffs responds as follows:

1A A. Naney Marie Scott.
Daughter.

May 18, 1957.

48 years of age.

San Francisco, California.

383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513
55%; 132 Ibs.

552-02-4206.

08288324.

Not applicable.

ormommpapoe we

DP MMUOD> HMONW> NHONWP AAAONOZEANTEOMMNOOMP MPOMOZEr

Not applicable,
Califomia N5577275.

Naney Marie Scott.

Masters Degree in Counseling.

Not applicable.

Denzil Gerald Scott.
October 28, 1920.
Campbell, Missouri.
38 intergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513.

'9" and approximately .
49216-6482.
Not applicable.
CSA 2 388 135.
337-38-82.
California 20824274,
Denzil Scott; Dennis Scott; Scotty.
12" grade.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not Not eplicabe

Scott.

Deetdeut and Mary Scott were married on August 4, 1943,
Decedent's marriage to Mary Scott ended on May 23, 1991, as a result of her death.

Joanne Marie Wolfarth.
8/1/44,

Natural.
2639 Silvercrest Street, Pinole, CA 94564.
Sole Proprietor.

Living.

Michael Gerald Scott.
3/28/46.

‘Natural.

2860 Evergreen Drive, San Bruno, CA 94066.
Security and Facility Operations Manager.
Living.

Robert David Scott.

419/47.

Natural.

518 Joaquin Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94577.

Science Teacher.
Living.

Thomas Cary Scott.
11/19/51.oa a we

©

10
aL
12
B
14
as
1s
17
18
is
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

28

C.— Natoral.
DB 1241 West Ghost Place, Tucson, AZ 85737.
Manager of fumiture store.

F Living.

A. Nancy Marie Scott.

B. 5/18/57.

Cc Natural.

D. 383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513,
E, Case Manager/Social Worker.

F. Living.

A. Mary Denise Sobolik.

BL S/11é64.

C Natural.

DB. 369 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513
E. — Housewife.

F Living.

‘A. Stephen Dennis Scott.

B. September 28, 1954.

Cc. — Natural.

DB. Deceased February 13, 1980.

E. Not applicable.

F Deceased.

No.

Not applicable.

Plaintiff can recall the following:

(1) 1920-1940: Campbell, Missouri;

(2) 1943-1946: 14 Marsilly Street, San Francisca, California;
GB 1946-1948: 2424 Spencer Road, San Diego, California;

(4) 1948-1951: 1024 Chenery Street, San Francisco, California;
¢ 1951-1953: 112 Byer Road, Washington, D.C.;

( 1953-1954: 205 Beach Street, Revere, Massachusetts;

(7) 1954-1955: 14 Marsilly Street, San Francisco, California;
(8} 1955-1996: 672 Orange Street, Daly City, California;

(9) 1996-2005: 383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, California.

Decedent graduated in 1938, from Campbell High School, in Campbell, Missouri

‘While a member of the United States Navy, decedent attended Advanced Gunners’ Mate
School in 1948, for 16 weeks, in Washington, D.C. Decedent also attended Instructor's
School, in 1956, San Diego, California.

January 13, 2006.
No.

Decedent was a member of the U.S. Navy ftom September 24, 1940 to April 4, 1960, as a
Gunners’ Mate Chief Senior grade. Decedent attended basic training at the U.S. Naval

training center in Great Lakes, Illinois. After basic training, decedent was assigned to the
USS MARYLAND (BB 46), from approximately 1940 - 1943, where he worked as a

~3-seaman recruit, in the ordinance division. Decedent also worked as a mess cook,
performed maintenance in the ammunition department, and operation of catapults and
guns. Also, while the USS MARYLAND was being overhauled in Bremerton,
‘Washington, decedent pertormed tire watcnes in compartments where welders were
welding. Devedent worked in close proximity to other trades performing work as well
during the overhauls. From December 22, 1943 to 1946, decedent served onboard USS
LAVALLETTE (DD448), as a gunner’s mate and also worked in the repair party, where he
assisted in the repair o1 ire damage and/or flooding. Decedent also performed various
cleaning duties onboard the USS LAVALLETTE. Decedent was onboard this vessel when
it underwent repair work at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Thereafter, decedent was
assigned to a subgroup in San Diego, California, from approximately April 1946 to April
1948, where he assisted in putting various ships out of commission including, but not
limited to, USS HUDSONYDD475), USS FULLAM DD474). Detedent’s specific duties
while puttiug ships out of commission included, but were not limited to, putting the guns
up, oiling machinery, and insuring various compartments were cleaned out before the ship
was put out of commission. In May 1948, for sixteen weeks, decedent attended Gunner’s
Mate School, in Washington, D.C. In April 1949, decedent was stationed onboard the USS -
ROANOKE (CL145), where he worked as Chief, in charge of the No. 6 turret. In
September 149, decedent was stationed onboard the GENERAL A.E. ANDERSON
(AP111) as a chief gunners mate in charge of ordinance. After his work onboard the
GENERAL AE. ANDERSON, decedent performed shore duty as a ceremonial guard at
US. Naval Receiving Station, Washington, D.C. Following the shore duty, decedent was
stationed onboard the USS WOOSTER, as a junior officer, where he stood watch and was
in charge of several turets.“Dévedent was onboard the USS WOOSTER for approximately
five months, Thereafter, in 1953, decedent worked onboard the USS BALTIMORE (CA
68) as Chief in Charge of No. 3 and 4 ordinance divisions. Decedent attended Tnsmuctor’s
School in 1956, in San Diego, California. Decedent also served onboard the USS
ORISKANY and also assisted in putting the USS ORISKANY out of commission. In
addition, né-served onboard the USS BURTON ISL.ANDowhere he supervised guanery for
approximately five months; USS WARRICRAK. 68), where he supervised gunnery and
was in charge of the ordinance division and also assisted in putting the USS WARWICK.
out of commission? USS ISHERWONN (DD 520), where he was in charge of ordnance for
three years, from 1957-1960. Decedent was also onboard the USS WORCESTER (CL
144). During his naval career, decedent also worked onboard the foll6wing stays
Juckeding: bet not limited or CHICAGO, CORAL SHA: CRAIG; ENTERPRISE:
HANCOCK: HANSONYHUDSON, KANSAS CITTLONG BEACH; MAUNA KEA
PYROyand SPERRY. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.

‘Without access to decedent's medical records to refresh her memory, plaintiff eannot
provide all the detailed medical information sought in these interrogatories. It would be an

inary individual indeed who could recall all of the detailed medical information
requested in these interrogatories, This introductory statement is incorporated by reference
into each and every interrogatory in this set seeking medical information. In partial
response to this interrogatory, please see the information provided below and the
information provided in answers to Interrogatories No. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, which is the
best that plaintiff can do by memory alone at this time.

(@) A. Ds. Brown,
B. Campbell, Missouri.
C. Physical examinations.
D. 1938.
E. General healtheare.
F.

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Dr. Brown.B)

@

(5)

©

()

BRDOMD BROOEP MBDA mMpAMP

mRBDOw >

BRDORP

mmo wD

Unknown doctor.

U.S. Army Hospital, Jefferson barracks, ‘St. Louis, Missouri.
Medical treatment and evaluation.

1939,

Malaria,
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from U.S. Army Hospital.

‘Unknown doctors.

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, CA.

Medical treatment and evaluation.

1960-1973.

General healthcare, dermitis.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard.

Dr. Evans.
‘Treasure Island, CA.
Physical examination.
1982.

Cold.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Dr. Evans.

Dr. Gronbeck.

Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

Pulmonary function test/CT scan.

November 1982.

Asbestos Screening,

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Letterman General
Hospital.

Dr. Stephen Matarese.

Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

Pulmonary function test and screening.

January 1986.

‘Asbestos screening.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Letterman General
Hospital.

Dr. Kaplan

Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

Prostate biopsy.

November 1986.

Prostate problems.

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Letterman General

Hospital.

Dr. Horton ©. Hinshaw, Jr.

450 Sutter Street, Ste. 1023, San Francisco, CA 94108.

X-rays, medical examination, and evaluation.

May 5, 1986, December 10, 1986, 1989.

Breathing problems; asbestosis.

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Dr. Horton C. Hinshaw,
ia wk Bw oN

(10)

ap

(2)

(13)

a4}

as)

(16)

DOB mMmoNw>

a

> SMUOP MUN D> AMUOeP =ROOwD ANDOMP

Various doctors.

Seton Medical Center, Daly City, CA.
ient biopsy, pulmonary care.
1990s.

Breathing problems.
Plaintiff refers to decedent's medicel records from Seton Medical Center.

Dr. Bemens.

106 La Casa Via, #208, Walnut Creek, CA.

General health care.

19903-2005,

General healthcare, breathing problems, diagnosis of lung cancer in
approximately May 2004 and metastatic bone cancer in approximately
‘November 2004.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Dr. Bernens.
interrogatory.

Dr, Ramin Khashayar.
430 La Casa Via, #208, Walnut Creek, CA.
Pulmonary care.

1990s to 2008.

Breathing problems and ung cancer.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Dr, Khashaya.

‘Dr. Donald T. Hay.

1455 Montego, Walnut Creek, CA 94598.

Urology care.

1990s to 2005.

Prostate cancer.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Dr. Hay.

Dr. Mark Nathan.

106 La Casa Via, Walnut Creck, California.
Consultation/evaluation.

Approximately 1995.

Bypertension:
intiff refers to decedem’s medical records from Dr. Nathan.

Dr. Irwin Shelub.

Peninsula Pulmonary Medical Group, 901 Campus Drive, Ste. 209, Daly
City, CA.

Pulmonary care.

Late 1980s to early 1990s.

Asbestosis,

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Dr. Shelub.

‘Dr. Charles Kasper.
2121 Ygnacio Valley Road, Ste. 203, Walnut Creek, CA.

Surgery

2000.
Strangulated bowel.
Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Dr. Kasper.

Apria Healtheare.aon

(38)

(9)

@9)

smDaw

MEDOM> AMOOB> mMONw>

Brentwood, California.
Breathing problems.
1990s - 2005,

Oxygen. 4
Plaintiff refers decedent’s medical records from Apriu Healthcare.

‘Dr. Michael Sherman,
110 Tampico, Ste. 100, Walnut Creek, CA.

Oncology evaluation.
May 2004.

‘Lung cancer.

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Dr. Michael Sherman.

John Muir Home Health.

2298 Pike Court, Concord, California.
Palliative care.

November 2004.

Lung cancer.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from John Muir Home Health.

Hospice of Contra Costa County.

Concord, California.

Hospice care.

November 2004 to January 2005.

Lung cancer and metastatic bone cancer.

Plaintiff refers 10 decedents medical records from Hospice of Contra Costa
unty.

Plaintiff further states that she cannot recall any other doctor who has treated or examined
decedent during the last ten years for any condition, and beyond ten years for cancer and/or
conditions related to the lungs, respiratory system, and/or ribs and any additional
complaints or conditions stated in response to Interrogatory No. 16,

“The prefatory remarks in answer to Interrogatory No. 10 are incorporated herein by this

wm

@

ce.

o> BMIOw> =MoOw>

US. Amy Hospital.
St. Louis, Missouri.

Tigtment and examination for mslasia
1939.

Malaria.
Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from the U.S. Amy Hospital.

US. Naval Hospital.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Tonsillectomy.

Tune 1949.

Tonsillitis.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from the U.S. Naval Hospital.
Letterman General Hospital.

San Francisco, California.

Lacerated finger (1984); lesion on left hand (1985); prostate biopsy (1986);
pulmonary evaluations (1982 & 1986); bronchoscopy, thoracotomy, and

-7-‘wedge resection of left lingular mass (1988),

refers to Interrogatory No. 11, 1(C), above.

2 refers to Interrogatory No. 11, 1(C), above.

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from Letterman General
Hospital.

John Muir Medical Center.
1601 Ygnacio Valley Road, Walnut Creek, CA.

Hernia surgery (approx. 1989); surgery for strangulated bowel (approx.
2000); eataract surgery 2004); diagnosis of lung cance through chest x-ray
performed at this facility in May 2004; and diagnosis of metastatic bone
cancer from bone scan performed at this facility in November 2004.
Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 11, 4(C), above.

Plaintiff refers to Intemogstory No, 11, 4(C), above,

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from John Muir Medical
Center.

Please see the prefatory remark to Interrogatory No. 10 that is incorporated herein by this
reference. In addition, please see plaintiff's answers to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11.
Plaintiff believes that numerous x-rays would have been taken by each doctor and at each
hospital noted above. Plaintiff kindly refers you to decedent's medical records as the best
source of information responsive to this interrogatory.

amp

a

OMP

me

Please see introductory remark to Interrogatory No. 10 that is incorporated herein by
reference. Please also see answers to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, and 12. Plaintiff does not
specifically recall whether the decedent underwent tpulmonaty function tests and, therefore,
Kindly refers you to decedent's medical records as the best source of information responsive
to this interrogatory.

Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records as the best source of information responsive
to this interrogaiory. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.

Plaintiff has identified medicel treatment she recalls decedent receiving in her answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13. She believes that all medical reports pertaining to
this treatment will be subpoenaed by the law firm of Berry and Berry based on plaintiff's
answers to interrogatories, Tn addition, plaintiff attaches copies of medical records
pertaining to decedent as follows: Horton C. Hinshaw, Jr., M.D., dated December 10, 1986
and August 21, 1989; Samuel P, Hammar, M.D., dated February 12, 1990; and Carolyn 8.
Ray, MD., dated February 15, 1990,

With respect to subparts E and F, please also see the introduction to Interrogatory No. 10
and decedent's medical records specifically incorporated herein by this referenee. Plaintiff
responds to the remainder of the interrogatory as follows:

Decedent began suffering from breathing problems during the early 1980s. As his
disease progressed, his symptoms also increased.

‘As lung cancer, mesothelioma, and bone cancer are terminal jlInesses, the
symptoms never ceased to affect decedent;

C. Yes, decedent experienced weight loss. In addition, decedent suffered from
extreme pain, agitation, and anxiety. He also suffered hallucinations es a result of
the pain management medications;

All parts of decedent's body were affected;

‘Approximately 1982. Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records as the best
source of information responsive to this interrogatory.

»

mo

-e-18.
19.
20.

21.

F. Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records as the best source of information
responsive to this interrogatozy.

G. No.

H. Not applicable

I. Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records

A. Decedent was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1986. Decedent was diagnosed with
Tung cancer in May 2004. In approximately November 2004, decedent was
diagnosed with metastatic bone cancer. After his death, the autopsy results
confirmed mesothelioma.

B. _ Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 17(B), above.

C. _Decedent advised plaintiffs of his diagnosis of asbestosis and lung cancer.
Pathology ‘Support Services communicated the mesothelioma diagnosis to
plainti

D. __ Pathology Support Services, Inc., P.O. Box 163450, Sacramento, California,

E. The diagnosis of asbestosis and lung cancer was confirmed via chest x-rays and CT
scans, ‘The diagnosis of metastatic bone cancer was confirmed by a bone scan. The
dingnosis ‘of mesothelioma was confirmed upon pathological evaluation of autopsy
materials.

F. Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, and 17(D), above as the best source of
information responsive to this interrogatory.

G. Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 17(C), above.

H. — Notapplicable.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records as the best source of information
Tesponsive to this interrogatory.

I Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records as the best source of information
responsive to this interrogatory.

K. _ Plaintiff refers to decedents medical records as the best source of information
responsive to this interrogatory.

L. Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records as the best source of information
responsive to this interrogatory.

No.
‘Yes. Please see 2 copy of the death certificate attached.

Yes.

A. Naney Scott, 383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, California.

B Daughter.

© Confirmation of illness causing death.

D. _ Plaintiff refers to the autopsy report, attached.

E. Michael C. Berry, M.D. (Pathologist).

FL Pathology Support Services, Inc., P.O. Box 163450, Sacramento, CA 95816.
G. January 24, 2005.

H. Malignant mesothelioma.

1 Pints and plainif” storey, Harowite& Tigerman, LLP

J, See attached.

K. See attached autopsy report.

Plaintiff does not know all of the pathology slides that exist at this time and, therefore,
kindly refers you to decedent's medical records. However, plaintiff is aware of the
following pathology slides:

(1) A. Letterman Hospital.Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records.
Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.

1988.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records.

Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records.

Pathology Support Services.
Michael C. Berry, M.D.
Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP.

January 24, 2005.

PSSL05-0022 - 26 Slides.

‘Not applicable.

22. Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records as the best source of information responsive
to this interrogatory. Please see answers to Interrogatories No. 10 and 11, and decedent's

medical records. Additionally, plaintiff answers as follows: Other than the injuries
associated with decedent's exposure to asbestos, plaintiff is not aware of any other injuries.

ABDODP TBD OF

23. Yes.
A. 1939-1973: cigarettes; 1973-1988: pipe.
B. Cigarettes and pipe.
Cc Daily.
D. _Decedent smoked zero to 3/4 pack of cigarettes per day. Devedent smoked
approximately 5 pipefuls per day.
E. Cigarettes: Lucky Stike, Pall Mall, Camel, Chesterfield, Marlboro. Pipe tobacto:
p__ nse Albert, Capsin Black, Borkum Riff, and Bull Durham.
No.
24. No.

25, Plaintiff respectfully objects to this interrogatory as being an invasion of privacy, and on
the grounds it assumes a pattem of alcoho] consumption over the decedent’s lifetime.
Without waiving these objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Decedent consumed
alcoholic beverages on a social basis throughout his lifetime.

26. Decedent was exposed to asbestos at those employments as noted helow. Discovery is
continuing as to decedent's exposure at all other employments. In addition, discovery is
continuing as to other places of employment where decedent may have worked for short

Employer: St. Louis & Southwestern Railroad, St. Louis, Missouri.
Job title: Ticket seller.

Date Stared: Approximately late 1930s. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Date Ended: Approximately late 1930s, Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Job Duties; Decedent sold tickets for the railroad.

Tob Sites: St, Louis & Southwestern Railroad, St. Louis, Missouri.

Estimated Total Time
Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery

Asbestos exposure?: Plaintiff is curently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are

continuing.

Employer: Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are

~ lo -continuing.
Jobtitle: Fatt laborer.
Date Started: Late 1930s. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Date Ended: Approximately 1940, Plaintif?'s investigation und discovery are continuing,
Job Duties: Decedent's duties included planting crops and caring for farm animals.

Job Sites. Farm, loceted in Missouri. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing,
Estimated Total Time

orked at That Site: Plaintiff is currently unaware, Plaintiff's investigation and discovery
are continuing.
‘Asbestos exposure?: Plaintiff is curently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.

U.S. Navy.

Seaman J* Class; Chief Gunners Mate; Jr. Officer.
|: September 24, 1940,

April 4, 1960.

Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 9, above,
Job Sites: Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 9, above.
Estimated Total Time

‘Worked at That Site: Nineteen and one half years.

Asbestos exposure?: Yes.

Employer: Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are

Job title: Maintenance Man.

Job Duties: Decedent’s job duties included the installation of fire pits, cutting tree limbs, and

Job Sites: __ Junipero Serra Park, San Bruno, California.
Estimated Total Time

Worked at That Site: Four months.
Asbestos exposure?: No.

Employer: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California.

Jobiille: Apprentice electrician/marine electrician/gyrocompass mechanic/ship’s system
mechanic.

Date Started: 1960.

Date Ended: 1973.

Job Duties: During the first four years of his employment, decedent worked as an spprentice
electrician. Thereafter, he worked asa marine electrician, gyrocompass mechanic,
and ship’s system mechanic. While at Hunters Point, decedent performed work
onboard various ships and in various shops throughout the shipyard. Decedent
worked in the engine rooms and worked around various trades including, but not
limited to, shipfitters, welders, electricians, bumers, and pipe laggers. Plaintiff's
investigation and discovery are continuing.

Job Sites; Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Sen Francisco, California,

Estimated Total Time

‘Worked at That Site: 13 years,

‘Asbestos Exposure?: Yes.

Employer: Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California.

Jobtitle: Gyrocompass mechanic.
Date Started: 1973.

-n-Date Ended: 1973,
Job Duties: Asa gyrocompass mechanic, decedent performed work in Shop 51, as well as,
‘onboard various ships. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Job Sites: Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California-
Estimated Total Time
Worked at That Site: Approximately three months.
Asbestos Exposure?: Yes.

Employer: Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California.

Job title: ‘Instrument mechanic.

Date Started: 1973.

Date Ended: 1980.

Job Duties: Decedent's job duties included calibrating instruments in different buildings
throughout Alameda Naval Air Station. Decedent also performed some calibrating
work at Moffett Field, California. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.

Job Sites: Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California; Moffett Field, California,

Estimated Total Time

‘Worked at That Site: Seven years.

Asbestos Exposure?: Yes.

Employer: Allan Instrument Company, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Job title: Gyrocompass mechanic.
Date Started: 1981.

Date Ended: 1982.

Job Duties: Decedent performed gyrocompass mechanic work. Decedent worked onboard the
PYRO, while docked in San Francisco, California. Decedent recalls the PYRO was
being overhauled during the time he was onboard overhauling the gyrocompass.
Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.

Job Sites: Various including, but not limited to, PYRO. Plaintiff's investigation and
discovery are continuing.

Estimated Total Time

‘Worked at That Site: Approximately one year. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.

Asbestos Expusure?: Yes.

Employer: Gyro Marine Instrument, Inc., San Francisco, Califomia.
Jobtitle:  Gyrocompass mechanic.
Date Started: 1982; 1985.
Date Ended: 1983, 1985.
Job Duties: Decedent performed gyrocompass repait work onboard various ships dacked in San
” Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
but not limited to, various ships docked in San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Estimated Total Time
‘Worked at That Site: Approximately two years. Plaintifi's investigation and discovery are
continuing.
Asbestos Exposure?: Yes.

Employer: Allen Rose Ford Home Sales, Daly City, California.

Job title: ‘Handyman.

Date Started: 1983.

Date Ended: 1983.

Job Duties: Decedent performed work as a handyman including, but not limited to, painting,

Job Sites:

-12-installation of light fixtures and doors, and sheetrock work. Plaintiff's investigation

and discovery are continuing.
Job Sites: Various homes in and around Daly City, California. Plaintiff's investigation and
discovery are continving.
Estimated Total Time

Worked at That Site: Approximately one year. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.

Asbestos Exposure?: Plaintiff is currently unaware. PlaintifPs investigation and discovery are
ing.

27.

28.
29,
30.
31.

35.
36.

37.

38.

continuing.
No.
Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.

While a member of the U.S. Navy, decedent underwent regular chest x-rays. Decedent also
underwent physical examinations during his employment at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
and Alameda Naval Air Station. Plaintiif is currently unaware of fhe results of these
physical examinations and any further information responsive to this interrogatory.
Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing.

Decedent performed home remodel work, sometime between 1956-1958, on the family
home that was located at 672 Orange Street, Daly City, California, Decedent transformed
the downstairs basement into a bedroom. Decedent performed all of the work associated
with this remodel including, but not limited to the framing, sheetrock, and electrical work.
Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.

No.
Decedent took regular retirement in 1980, at the age of 60, after completing 20 years of

civil service. Decedent continued to work on a part-time thereafter until approximately
1987. Plainlif?’s investigation and discovery are continuing.

No.

1977 $28,700.00
1978 $31,300.00
1979 $31,000.00
1980 $29,600.00
1981 $ 8,600.00
1982 $35,100.00
1983 $32,000.00
1984 $27,000.00
1985 $33,900.00
1986 $34,000.00
1987 $35,000.00
No.

‘Yes. Plaintiff does not knew the total of hospital expenses at this time. Plaintiff believes
that coordinating defense counsel Berry & Berry will order hospital bills and make them

~a3-39,

40.

4

42.

43.

44,

45.

46.

Wy
We
wa
We
ua

available to defendants. Discovery is continuing is this regard.

Yes. Plaintiff does not know the total of these medical expenses at this time. Plaintiff
believes that coordinating defense counsel Berry & Berry will order medical bills and make
them available to defendants. Discovery is continuing is this regard.

The information sought can be found in the billing records of the health care providers
whose records Berry & Berry may be acquiring by authorization or subpoena. Pursuant to
CCP. Section 2030(0),plaittfftespectfully declines to make the compilation sought in
this interrogatory and directs you to the original records from which you can make this
calculation.

Yes.
ay August 10, 1989 (Deposition).

i “Manhattan, et al., San Francisco Superior Court
No. 854686.

Aiken & Welch Court Reporters, Oakland, California. (510) 451-1580.

Yes,

Not applicable.

February 26, 1990 & February 28, 1990 (Trial Transcripts).

Dendil Set v. Ravbssos-Manhatan, etal, San Francisco Superior Court
54686.

Claudine Woeber, CSR No. 4094; Kathy Ekren, CSR No. 2774 at CCSF
Reporters.

Yes.
Not applicable.

@)

BD 0 BP RDO wp

Objection. Collateral source, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waving the same, plaintiff answers as follows:
fo.

No.
None other than the action referred to in Interrogatory No. 45, below.

None other than the personal injury action filed by decedent, March 17, 1986, San
Francisco Superior Court No. 854686. Decedent was represented by Cartwright,
Suchenman & Slobodin, Inc., San Francisco, California.

Yes. Garlook; Crown, Cork & Seal; Sacomo Sierra; Combustion Engineering: Uniroyal;
Asatoo; H.K, Porter Co.; Eagle Picher Industries; Plant Insulation Company; Westem

MacAsthur Company; Center For Claims Resolution; Owens-Illinois; UNR Trust,
Manville Trust; Celotex Trust.

~14ae47. ¥es. Please see attached.

Dated: alt 2006

HAROWIIZ & TIGERMAN, LLP

Attorneys for PLAINAIFFS

- 15+Pow NW

w

a

wo a

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
7
1g
ag
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28

VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW

- 16 -Feb 2207 10:20a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 pe
nae

Se
Stephen M, Fishback (State Bar No. 191646)
Daniel L. Keller (State Ber No. 191738)
KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201
‘Agoura Hills, CA 91301
“felephone: 318.879.3033
Facsimile; 818.292.8891

Attomeys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
(UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)

NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as
Suecessor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT, Case No. 443236

Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH;
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO GENERAL

DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT, | ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SETTWO
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE

* NGFUL,
14|| through TENTH DOS, inclusive, RONGFUL DEATH)

15 Plaintiffs,
6 vs

17|| AC ANDS, INC,, et al.,
Is Defendants.
19

20

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendants

22) RESPONDING PARTY: _ Plaintiffs NANCY MARIE SCOTT, JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH,
23 MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT, ROBERT DAVID SCOTT, THOMAS,
24 CARY SCOTT, MARY DENISE SOBOLIK.

SET NUMBER: Two

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO(WRONGFUL DEATH)
Page!Feb 22.07 10:30a Kellar, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-0033 p3

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.

Plaintiffs’ responses are based upon information in plaintiffs’ possession at the time uf
answering these interrogetories. Plaiutifffs have consulted all sources reasonably available in
preparing these responses. However, plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attomeys have not fully completed
their investigation of the fects selated to this case, have not completed their discovery in this action
and have not completed their preparation for trial Plaintiffs" discovery and investigation will
continue to and throughout the trial of the above-captioned action. Plaintiffs reserve the right fo
supplement and amend these responses if plaintiffs discover any responsive information.

The following responses arc based upon plaintiffs’ understanding of the meaning of each of
the interrogatories. If propounding party asserts an interpretation of any request which differs
from plaintiffs’ understanding of the meaning of such interrogatory, then any response contained
herein is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right 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, materiality, 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 plaintiffs" responses to
discovery requests:

1. Plaintiffs object fo the extent that the information requested is equally or more
available to the propounding party than responding party (Alpine Mut. Water Company » Superior
‘Court (1968) 259 Cal. App 2d 45);

2. Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests are overly broad, vague,
ambiguous, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and speculative due to the uillimited scope of the
request regarding time and location;

3. Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests can only produce information
irrelevant to the subject matter of the above-captioned action, and are not reasonably calculated to

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (YRONGFUL DEATH)

Pnge2Feb 22 07 1031a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 p4

lead to discovery of admissible evidence, and are therefore burdensome, oppressive, and harassing;

4 Plaintiffs object to the discovery requests to the extent they conflict with the goneral
order interrogatories such discovery purports to rely upon and in the event of a conflict, plaintiffs
follow the applicable general order;

3. Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests information protected by
attorney work product and attomey-client privilege. By disclosure of any information arguably
covered by any privilege, plaintiffs do not intend 2 broader waiver of the privilege;

6. Plaintiffs object to the discovery requests to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous,

speculative, and overly broad so as to be oppressive and unduly burdensome;

testimony in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034,210, and/or call for a

10; 7. Plaintiffs object to the discovery requests to the extent that they call for expert opiaion

4i_ legal conclusion, which is not the proper subject of discovery;

8. Plaintiffs object to the discovery requests 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 the discovery requests to the extent that they seek to impose greater
obligations than those permitted under the California Code of Civil Procedure;

10. Plaintifis object to the extent that the discovery requests seek information protected by
plaintifi's federal, state, and common law rights of privacy;

11. Plaintiffs object to the extent the discovery is duplicative and/or harassing:

12. Plaintiffs object to the extent defendants request information, which has been asked and

answered in previons discovery device, and is thus harassing, oppressive and repetitious
(Combrook v, Superior Court (1960) 56 Cal.24 423, 430);

13, Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests call for the disclosure of expert
| information; and

14, Plaintiffs further object to the extent that much of the information responsive to these
requests is contained within asbestos defendants’ own business records, through depositions taken
of product identification witnesses through the course of asbestos litigation and through the
standard General Order 29 and 129 responses to interrogatories provided by those defendants also

PLAINTIFFS" RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)

PagesFeb 22.07 10312 Keller, Fishback & Jacks 818-879-8033 ps

involved in decedent's exposure as his employers or coworkers and sub-contractors at mumierous of
devedent’s work sites referred to in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto.
Without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
STANDARD INTERROGATORY, Set 2, No. 1:
For each and every one of the known job sites at which decedent performed work of any
ind, plaintifis refer to the following responsive information as well as the mote specific and
detailed responsive information contained in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and fully incorporated

herein by this reference.

Interrogatory 1, Subsections A (work site} sddress)
For every worke site identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, plaintiffs have identified both
the site name and the corresponding address. For those sites where an incomplete name and/or
address is provided, or no name or address is provided at all, plaintiffs continue to investigate the
same through the search of public databases such as the intemet and phone listings, and by
contacting identified co-workers and review of records of decedent's employers to complete the
responses to sub-sections A and B. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses with
such information and/or introduce, at trial, such information that is discovered after the service of
these responses.

Interrogatory 1, Subsection C (da

For each and every known job site at which decedent performed work, plaintiffs have
attempted to identify in Exhibit “A” the exact days decedent wns present at such site. For those
sites where incomplete time period and/or days of work is provided, plaintiffs are curreatly
investigating employment records and conesponding information from decedeat’s employers and

identified co-workers and/or witnesses to supplement the responses to sub-section C. Plaintifis
reserve the right to supplement these responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial,
such information that is discovered after the service of these responses.

Interrogat ection D (emplover):

For each and every known job site identified in Exhibit “A,” plaintiffs have attempted to
identify the employer for whom decedent was performing work at such site.

For those sites where incomplete employer information is provided, plaintiffs continue to

PLAINTIFFS" RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO (WRONGFUL OFATH)
Pope 4Feb 22 07 10314 —_Kller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-6033 PG

investigate employment secords and identified co-workers and other equally available sources to
supplement their respouises to sub-section D. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these
responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial, any information that is discovered after

the service of these responses.

le) and FL performes

Interrogatory 1, Subsect

Plaintiffs have attempted to provide the most comprehensive compilation of information
relating these inquiries for each work site, identified in Exhibit “A”, where decedent has worked,
For those sites where decedent's job title or description of work performed appears incomplete,
plaintiffs continue to search equally available sources such as employment records, identified co-
‘workers and witnesses, defendants! business records, and defendants' responses to General Order
and case specific interrogatories to supplement the responses to sub-sections E and F. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to supplement these responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial,

such information that is discovered after the service of these responses.

jubsecti (work with or sbestos or =

| containing materials at the job site):

As listed on Exhibit “A,” plaintiffs believe decedent was exposed, whether directly or
indirectly, to asbestos at each of the identified job sites. Due to the fact that asbestos fibers, once
released into the air, have a very slow settling velocity, drift with the currents of air movement and
are also easily re-entrained once settled, decedent was exposed to asbestos at any site where
asbestos was utilized and/or disturbed in his vicinity.

Interrogatory 1, Subsection G, sub-subsections 1 (area worked) and 2 (days suffering

exposure}
Plaintiffs have attempted to identify the specific area within the work site where decedent

worked with or around asbestos or asbostos-containing materiais and the length of time of each
such exposure in Exhibit “A,” and their responses to Interrogatories No. 1.B. and 1.C. For those
sites where decedent’s work area or duration of exposure appears incomplete, plaintiffs are
currently investigating employment records and corresponding information from decedent's
employers and identified co-workers and/or witnesses to supplement the responses. However,

because of the propensity of asbestos fibers to float, drifl and re-entrain, and since even invisible

PLAINTIFES’ RESPOKSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)
PagesFab 22 07 1031a Kollar, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 7

levels of asbestos concentrations in the air contributed substantially to decedent's total aggregate
dose of occupational exposure to asbestos, decedent was necessarily exposed to respirable asbestos
fibers genevated by other workers or trades in his vicinity and from other sources of which he may
not ever have been personeliy aware. Consequentiy, plaintiffs contend decedent was exposed lo
asbestos every day he was present at a work site where asbestos was being or had been

manipulated in his general vicinity.

Interrogatory 1 Gs tion 3 (control of wor rs)

PlaintifiS respond that the general contractors and sub-contractors for each of decedent's
work sites predominantly controlled such site, or their work area within that site and, either
directly or indirectly, controlled the placement, timing or manner of decedent's activities. The
nature and scope of the direction is covered by the general contractors and sub-contractors’
contracts in the exclusive possession of the relevant named defendants in this action. Where more
specific responsive information is known (.e., names of contractors’ employees responsible for
safety or direction of time, place or manner of work disturbing asbestos), plaintifis have identified
such contractors’ employees and/or further responsive information currently available regarding
direction of decedent’s work at each site in Exhibit “A.” For those sites where incomplete
information is provided, most of the information regarding "control" issues is in the exclusive
possession of the relevant named "premises" defendants. Thus plaintiffs continue to search
equally available public databases (such as building permits) to supplement the responses to sub-
subsection 3 Information responsive to this sub-section is also in the possession or control of the
relevent named defendants in this action and such information should be available through
defendants’ responses to case specific interrogatories from plaintiffs or through General Order
Intertogatory responses. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses wilh such
information andior introduce, af trial, such information that is discovered after the service of these
responses.

Intern 1, Subsecti ub-subsections 4 (co-workers) and 5 (other
witnesses):

Plaintiffs have attempted to identify each and every one of decedent's co-workers or other
individuals with knowledge of his exposure, for each identified site, in Exhibit “A.” For those

PLAINTIFFS" RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES. SIET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)
PagesFeb 22.07 10312 Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033, ps

sites where incomplete co-worker and/or exposure witness information is provided, plaintifiis

continue to search public databases (such as contracts, the intemet and phone listings) and

+ dnvestigate other known co-workers to augment co-worker and witness information responsive to

sub-subsections 4 and 5. Much of this information is also in the possession or control of
decedent’s employers and other defendants in this action. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
supplement these responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial, such information that

is discovered after the service of these responses.

interrogatory 1. Subsections G, sub-subscctions 6 and 7 (contemporaneous and prior
contractors)

Plaintiffs have provided the most responsive, currently available information on contractor
identities in Exhibit “A.” Where incomplete contractor identification is provided, or no contractor
is identified at all, plaintiffs contin to search public databases and research identified co-
workers, construction contracts, building permits and defendants” responses to standard and case
specific discovery to complete the responses to sub-subsections 6 and 7. Plaintiffs reserve the
right to supplement these responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial, such
information that is discovered after the service of these responses.
bsections $ and 9 (supporting doc

Interro;

‘The majority of any documentation supportive of plaintiffs! responses can be found or
identified through equally available sources such as defendants’ business records, defendants’
responses to standard and case-spevific discovery, building permits and In Re Complex Litigation
discovery. Plaintiffs will aot endeavor to compilea list of all of the documents that are equally
available, Plaintiffs continue to search these and other equally available resources to discover
information more responsive to sub-subsections 8 and 9. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement
these responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial, such information that is
discovered after the service of these responses.

Interrogatory 1, Subsections G, sub-subsection 10(a-c) (Decedent's work with

asbestos):
Plaintifis have provided the most responsive, currently available information on the details

regarding decedent’s work with asbestos or asbestos-containing materials in Exhibit “A”.

PLAINTIFFS” RESPONSES TO GENBRAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)
Page?Feb 2207 10:32a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 618-879-6033 pg

Decedent did not wear breathing protection against asbestos inhalation. In fact, decedent was not
aware of the possibility of danger from asbestos inhalation until such knowledge became public
throughout the news media. Decedent was not provided any breathing protection by his employer
before such time nor was he ever advised that such protection was available. Additional
information may be found or identified through equally available sources such as defendants!
business records, defendants’ responses ta standard and case-specific discovery, building permits,
construction contracts and discovery propounded in specific. cases and Jn Re Complex Litigation.
Plaintifis continue to search those equally available resources and public databases such as
identified co-workers, construction contracts, building permits and defendants’ responses 16
standard and case specific discovery to complete the responses to sub-subsection 10. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to supplement these responses with such information and/or introduce, at trial,
such information that is discovered after the service of these responses.

Interropatorv 1, Subsections G, sub-subseetion 1Ma-h) (others' work with asbestos):

Plaintiffs have provided the most responsive, currently available information on the details
regarding other entities’ or individuals’ work with asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, in the
vicinity of decedent, in Exhibit “A.” Decedent did not wear breathing protection against asbestos
‘generation caused by other entities or individuals, Moreover, unless specifically indicated to the
contrary in Exhibit “A,” plaintiffs are unaware of any general contractor, sub-contractor or any of
their agents or represeuttatives having taken any safety precautions to protect decedent from
‘exposure to asbestos, Additional information may be found or identified fhrough equally available
Sources such as defendants‘ business records, defendants! responses to standard and case-specific
discovery, building permits, construction contracts and In Re Com