Preview
ferret
& @® bh
Bocherer 4
Kannett &
Schweitzer
2900
Powell St
Suilv 805 20
Emeryvitle, CA
94608 o
510-658-3600 SOF
28
Mark S. Kannett (SBN 1045/2) ELECTRONICALLY
Constance R. Fraenkel (SBN 1079871} FILED
BECHERER, KANNETT & SCHWEITZER superior Coutt of Caytorn
2200 Powell Street, Suite 805 County of San Francisco
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 658-3600 oar 26 200 7 k
Facsimile: (510) 658-1151 oy RAYMOND K WONG
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant
M. SLAYEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually CASE NO. 443236
and as Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL
SCOTT, Decedent; JOANE MARIE
WOLFARTH; MICHAEL GERALD
SCOTT, ROBERT DAVID SCOTT,
DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY
CONSTANCE FRAENKEL IN
SUPPORT OF M. SLAYEN AND
)
)
)
)
THOMAS CARY SCOTT, and MARY 3} ASSOCIATES, INC.’S, MOTION FOR
DENISE SOBOLIK; } SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, Date: June 11, 2007
} Time: 9°30 a.m.
VS. } Dept: 302
} Judge: Honorable Patrick J. Mahoney
AC AND S, INC., et al. }
} Complaint Filed. July 20, 2005
Defendants. ) Trial Date: July 16, 2007
i)
|, Constance Fraenkel, do declare as follows:
1. | am an attorney at law duly admitted fo practice before the courts of the
State of California, and am a senior associate at the law firm of BECHERER, KANNETT
& SCHWEITZER, 2200 Powell Street, Suite 805, Emeryville, CA 94608, counsel of
record for defendant M. SLAYEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ("M. SLAYEN"), in this case.
| have personal knowledge of the following facts and could, if called, testify compeiently
thereto.
DECLARATION GF ATTORNEY CONSTANCE FRAENKEL IN SUPPORT OF M SLAYEN AND ASSOCIATES,
INC *S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBecherer
Kannett &
Schweitzer
$Sioss3600
2. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Death Standard Responses to Interrogatories, sets one and two,
Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendant's Standard Interrogatories to heirs of decedent and
supplemental responses thereto in this action
3. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of this
moving defendant's Form Interrogatories served on plaintiffs.
4. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of
plaintiffs’ only responses to this moving defendant's Form Interrogatories
5. Altached hereto and marked as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of this
moving defendant's Request for Admissions served on plaintiffs.
6 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of
plaintiffs’ only responses to this moving defendant's Request for Admissions.
7. Attached hereto and marked as Ext F is a true and correct copy of this
moving defendant's Special Interrogatories served on plaintiffs
8. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of
plaintiffs' only responses to this moving defendant's Requests for Special interrogatories.
9. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of this
moving defendant's Special Requests for Production of Documents served on plaintiffs.
10. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit | is a true and correct copy of
plaintiffs’ only responses to this moving defendant's Special Request for Production of
Documents.
11. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of
relevant portions of deposition transcripts of plaintiff NANCY SCOTT.
12. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of
relevant portions of deposition transcripts of plaintiff MARY SOBOLIK
13. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of
relevant portions of deposition transcripts of plaintiff THOMAS SCOTT.
2
DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY CONSTANCE FRAENKEL IN SUPPORT OF M SLAYEN AND ASSOCIATES,
INC'S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1 14. The documents submitted in support of this motion are all the documents
known to me that relate to plaintiffs’ claims against this moving defendant.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on MarchZ6_, 2007,
Constance Fraenkel l
2
3
4
5 | in Emeryville, California.
6
7
8
g
Beonerer
Kannett & 24
Schweltzer
fat 26
Tintssnm0 27
28 3
DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY CONSTANCE FRAENKEL IN SUPPORT OF M SLAYEN AND ASSOCIATES,
INC'S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTEXHIBIT A"
eB ow oN
Moyen
/
STEVEN M. HAROWITZ (Bar No. 71117)
STEPHEN M. TIGERMAN (Bar No. 112127)
RONALD K, HERRON (Bar No. 133936)
MIA MATTIS (Bar No. 191027)
HAROWIIZ & TIGERMAN, LLP
450 Sansome Street, 3 Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone (415) 788-1588
Facsimile (415) 788-1598
Attomeys 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
STANDARD INTERROGATORIES
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT
PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANTS
DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT;
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE
through TENTH DOE, inclusive, (Wrongful Death)
Plaintiffs, Set 1
vs.
ACANDS, INC,, et al.,
Defendants.
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 to each interrogatory and sub-interrogatory. In
addition, plaintiff respectfully objects to each interrogatory and sub-interrogatory insofar as it calls
for privileged work product or privileged attomey-client communication. Without waiving these
objections, plaintifiS responds as follows:
1A Nancy Marie Scott.
Daughter.
May 18, 1957.
48 years of age.
San Francisco, California.
383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513.
515"; 132 Ibs.
552-02-4206.
08288324.
Not applicable.
Somommuom>BP MRCOG AMOOW> ADOOWR ALRONOZEMACMEORMUOP MROTOZEUA
Not applicable.
California N5577275.
Nancy Marie Scott.
Masters Degree in Counseling.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Denzil Gerald Scott.
October 28, 1920.
Campbell, Missouri.
383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513.
5'9* and approximately 130 Ibs
492-16-6482.
Not applicable.
CSA 2 388 135.
37-38-82.
California 20824274.
Denzil Scott; Dennis Scott; Scotty.
12" grade.
Not applicable.
Not applicabie.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Mary G. Scott.
Decedent 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.
419147.
Natural.
518 Joaquin Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94577.
Science Teacher.
Living
Thomas Cary Scott
1/19/51Natural.
1241 West Ghost Place, Tucson, AZ 85737.
Manager of furniture store.
Living,
Naney Marie Scott.
5/18/57.
Natural.
383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513.
Case Manager/Social Worker.
Living.
Mary Denise Sobolik.
5/11/64.
Natural.
369 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, CA 94513
Housewife.
Living
mEpOm> RDO
Stephen Dennis Scott,
September 28, 1954.
Natural.
Deceased February 13, 1980
Not applicable.
Deceased.
BRUObE sMUON>
No.
Not applicable
Plaintiff can recall the following:
(1) 1920-1940: Campbell, Missouri;
(2) 1943-1946: 14 Marsilly Street, San Francisco, California;
(G) 1946-1948: 2424 Spencer Road, San Diego, California;
(4) 1948-1951: 1024 Chenery Street, San Francisco, California;
(5) 1951-1953: 112 Byer Road, Washington, D.C.;
(6) 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.
Ss
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 from 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 aseaman 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 periormed fire watcnes in compartments where welders were
welding. Decedent 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 inre 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 HUDSON¥DD475), USS FULLAM DD474}. Decedent’s specific duties
while putting ships out of commission included, but were not limited to, putting the guns
up, oiling inachinery, 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
Maite Schoul, 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 1949, 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 A.E. ANDERSON, decedent performed shore duty as a ceremonial guard at
U.S. 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 turrets. Decedent was onboard the USS WOOSTER for approxi ately
five months. Thereafter, in 1955, decedent worked onboard the USS BALTIMORE
68) as Chief in Charge of No. 3 and 4 ordinance divisions. Decedent atténded Tnsurctor’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, neserved onboard the USS BURTON ISLANI here he supervised gunnery for
approximately five months; USS WARRICKAK 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 ISHERWOON (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 following ships
including, but not limited to: CHICAGO, CORAL SEA: CRAIG, ENTERPRISE;
HANCOCK: HANSON“HUDSON, KANSAS CITSLONG BEACH; MAUNA KEA
PYRO; and SPERRY. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Without access to decedent's medical records to refresh her memory, plaintiff cannot
provide all the detailed medical information sought in these interrogatories. It would be an
extraordinary 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 Dr. Brown.
Campbell, Missouri.
Physical examinations.
1938.
General healthcare.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Dr. Brown.
Amo@
@)
@
6)
6)
(8)
BaDOw>
mMpOmD>
=m BP
MBDOwe mMOOwP
AMDORD mMDOw>
‘Unknown doctor,
USS. 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 fom Letterman General
Hospital.
Dr, Horton C. 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,
ir@)
(10)
ay
(12)
(3)
a4)
(1s)
(16)
myOmD> mmpOm>
> AMDOW> AMON WH MMOOWP AMUOw> mMUOEP
Various doctors.
Seton Medical Center, Daly City, CA.
Outpatient biopsy, pulmonary care.
Early 1990s.
Breathing problems.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Seton Medical Center.
Dr. Bernens.
106 La Casa Via, #208, Walnut Creek, CA.
General health care.
1990s-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, Berneas.
interrogatory.
Dr. Ramin Khashayar.
130 La Casa Via, #208, Walnut Creek, CA.
Pulmonary care
1990s to 2005.
Breathing problems and lung 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 Creek, California.
Consultation/evaluation.
Approximately 1995.
Hypertension.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from Dr. Nathan,
Dr. Inwin Shelub.
Peninsula Pulmonary Medical Group, 901 Campus Drive, Ste. 209, Daly
City, CA.
Pulmonary care.
Late 1980s to carly 1990s.
Asbestosis.
Plaintiff refers to docedent’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.(18)
as)
(20)
SMUOW> =NDOWP sebOwP shoe
Brentwood, California,
Breathing problems.
1990s - 2005.
Oxygen.
Plaintiff refers decedent’s medical records from Apria 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 Cott, 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 to decedents medical records from Hospice of Contra Costa
County.
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
reference
aoa
B
c
D
E
F
QA
B.
c
D.
EB
F
BA
B
c
US. Army Hospital.
St. Louis, Missouri,
Treatment and examination for malaria
1939.
Malaria,
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from the U.S. Army Hospital.
US. Naval Hospital.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Tonsillectomy.
June 1949.
Tonsillitis.
Plaintiff refers to decedent's medical records from the US. 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),
Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 11, 1(C), above.
Plaintiff 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); cataract surgery (2004): diagnosis of lung cancer 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 Interrogatory No. 11, 4(C), above.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records from John Muir Medical
Center.
mmo
@)
amp
mmy
Please see the prefatory remark to Interrogatory No. 10 that is incorporated herein by this
teference. 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.
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 pulmonary 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 interrogatory. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Plaintiff has identified medical 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. In 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 S.
Ray, M.D, 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 reference. Plaintiff
responds to the remainder of the interrogatory as follows:
A Decedent began suffering from breathing problems during the early 1980s. As his
disease progressed, his symptoms also increased.
BL As lung cancer, mesothelioma, and bone cancer are terminal il]nesses, the
symptoms never ceased to affect decedent;
CG Yes, decedent experienced weight loss. fn addition, decedent suffered from
extreme pain, agitation, and anxiety. He also suffered hallucinations as 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.
my
~8-18.
19.
20.
21.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records as the best source of information
responsive to this interrogatory.
io
Not applicable.
Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records.
sno om
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.
Cc. Decedent advised plaintiffs of his diagnosis of asbestosis and lung cancer.
Pathology Support Services communicated the mesothelioma diagnosis to
plaintiffs.
D Pathology Support Services, Inc., P.O. Box 163450, Sacramento, California.
5, ‘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
diagnosis 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. Not applicable.
1 Plaintiff refers to decedent’s medical records as the best source of information
responsive to this interrogatory.
J, 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 a copy of the death certificate attached.
Yes.
AL Nancy Scott, 383 Wintergreen Drive, Brentwood, California.
B. Daughter.
Cc. Confirmation of illness causing death.
dD. Plaintiff refers to the autopsy report, attached.
E. Michael C. Berry, MD. (Pathologist).
B Pathology Support Services, Inc., P.O. Box 163450, Sacramento, CA 95816,
G. January 24, 2005.
H. Malignant mesothelioma.
1 Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorney, Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP.
J See attached.
K. See attached autopsy report.
Plaintiff does not know ali 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.22.
23.
24.
25,
26.
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.
Q Pathology Support Services.
Michael C. Berry, M.D.
Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP.
January 24, 2005.
PSSL05-0022 - 26 Slides.
Not applicable.
mmpOw> mmo Of
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.
Yes
A. 1939-1973: cigarettes; 1973-1988: pipe
B. Cigarettes and pipe.
Cc Daily.
DB. _Devedent smoked zero to 3/4 pack of cigarettes per day. Decedent smoked
approximately 5 pipefuls per day.
E Cigarettes: Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Camel, Chesterfield, Marlboro. Pipe tobacco:
Prince Albert, Captain Black, Borkum Riff, and Bull Durham.
FE No.
No.
Plaintiff respectfully objects to this interrogatory as being an invasion of privacy, and on
the grounds it assumes a pattern of alcohol 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.
Decedent was exposed to asbestos at those employments as noted below. 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
periods.
Employer: St. Louis & Southwestern Railroad, St. Louis, Missouri.
Job title: Ticket seller.
Date Started: 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.
Job Sites: St. Louis & Southwestern Railroad, St. Louis, Missouri.
Estimated Total Time
Asbestos exposure
‘Worked at That Site: Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery
are continuing.
Plaintiffis currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.
Employer: — Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
~ 10 -continuing.
Job title; Farm laborer.
Date Started: Late 1930s. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Date Ended: Approximately 1940, Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Job Duties: Decedent’s duties included planting crops and caring for farm animals.
Job Sites: Farm, located in Missouri, Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Estimated Total Time
‘Worked at That Site: Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery
are continuing.
‘Asbestos exposure?: Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintifi’s investigation and discovery are
continuing
Employer: U.S. Navy.
Job title: Seaman 1* Class; Chief Gunners Mate; Ir. Officer.
Date Started: September 24, 1940.
Date Ended: April 4, 1960.
Job Dutic: Plaintiff refers to Interrogatory No. 9, above.
Job Site 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
continuing.
Job title: Maintenance Man
Date Started: 1960.
Date Ended: 1960.
Job Duties: Decedent’s job duties included the installation of fire pits, cutting tree limbs, and
maintaining the park.
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.
Job title: 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 apprentice
electrician. Thereafter, he worked as a 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, San Francisco, California.
Estimated Total Time
Worked at That Site: 13 years.
Asbestos Exposure?: Yes.
Employer: Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California.
Job title: Gyrocompass mechanic.
Date Started: 1973
-.1l-Date Ended: 1973.
Job Duties: As a 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 Ficld, 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: 198}.
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 Exposure?: Yes.
Employer: Gyro Marine Instrument, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Job title: Gyrocompass mechanic.
Date Started: 1982; 1985.
Date Ended: 1983; 1985.
Job Duties: Decedent performed gyrocompass repair work onboard various ships docked in San
Francisco. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
Job Sites: Including, but not limited to, various ships docked in San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff's investigation and discovery arc continuing.
Estimated Total Time
‘Worked at That Site: Approximately two years. Plaintiff'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,
-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 continuing.
Estimated Total Time
Worked at That Site: Approximately one year. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing.
Asbestos Exposure?: Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are
continuing
27. No.
28. Plaintiff is curently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
29. Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
30. Plaintiff is currently unaware. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
31, 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. Plaintiff is currently unaware of the results of these
physical examinations and any further information responsive to this interrogatory
Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing.
32. 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.
33 No.
34. 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 unti] approximately
1987. Plaintiff's investigation and discovery are continuing.
35. No.
36. 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 $35,000.06
37. No
38. Yes. Plaintiff does not know the total of hospital expenses at this time. Plaintiff believes
that coordinating defense counsel Berry & Berry will order hospital bills and make them
~ 13 -39.
40.
41
42.
45.
46.
Mi
A
MW
Mh
Mt
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
C.CP. Section 2030(4), plaintiff respectfully declines to make the compilation sought in
this interogatory and drets you to the original records from which you can make this
calculation.
Yes.
(ly August 10, 1989 (Deposition).
Denzil Scott v. Raybestos-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).
Denzil Scott v. Raybestos-M: etal,, San Francisco Superior Court
No. 854686.
Claudine Woeber, CSR No. 4094; Kathy Ekren, CSR No. 2774 at CCSF
Reporters.
Yes
Not applicable.
@)
2 => mUA BP
mo
Objection. Collateral source, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the.
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waving the same, plaintiff answers as follows:
No.
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,
Sucherman & Slobodin, Inc., San Francisco, California.
‘Yes. Garlock; Crown, Cork & Seal; Sacomo Sierra; Combustion Engineering; Uniroyal;
‘Asarco; HK. Porter Co ; Eagle Picher Industries; Plant Insulation Company; Western
MacArthur Company; Center For Claims Resoiution, Owens-IHinois; UNR Trust;
Manville Trust; Celotex Trust.
- 14a -47. Yes. Please see attached.
ra ne a t , 2006
HAROWITZ & TIGERMAN, LLP
SENNIFERPERUZZL
‘Attorneys for PLAI
~ 15 -VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW
- 16 -Feb 22 07 10:30a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033
1 Stephen M. Fishback {State Bar No. 191646)
Daniel L. Keller (State Bar No. 191738)
2 || KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201
3 || Agoura Hills, CA 92301
Telephone: 818.879.8033
4 |! Facsimile: 818.292 8891
5 1) Attomeys for Plaintifis
6%
|
ai | _ _ _
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
lo
NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as
11 |) Successor-in-Interest to DENZIL SCOTT, Case No. 443236
. Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH;
12!) MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO GENERAL
DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT; | ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE
* INGFUL
14|| through TENTH DOE, inclusive, (WRO DEATH)
15 Plaintiffs, i
vs
16
17|| ACANDS, INC, etal,
18 Defendants.
19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendants
221) RESPONDING PARTY: — Plaintiffs NANCY MARIE SCOTT, JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH,
3 MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT, ROBERT DAVID SCOTT, THOMAS
24 CARY SCOTT, MARY DENISE SOBOLIK.
25 i] SET NUMBER: Two
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)
Page |Feb 22.07 10:30a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033, p3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff’ responses are based upon information in plaintiffs” possession at the time of
answering these interrogatories. Plaintiffs have consulted all sources reasonably available in
preparing these responses. However, plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys have not fully completed
their investigation of the facts related to this case, have not completed their discovery in this action
and have not completed their preparation for trial Plaintifis’ discovery and investigation wilk
continue to and throughout the trial of the above-captioned action. Plaintifis reserve the right to
supplement and amend these responses if plaintiffs discover any 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 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 to the extent that the information requested is equally or more
available to the propounding party than responding party (Alpine Mut. Water Campany v 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 unlimited 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 (WRONGFUL DEATH)
Page?Feb 22 07 10:31a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 816-879-8033 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 general
order interrogatories such discovery purports to rely upon and in the event of a conflict, plaintiffs
follow the applicable general order:
5. Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests information protected by
attomey work product and attomey-client privilege By disclosure of aay information arguably
covered by any privilege, plaintiffs do not intend a 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 2s to be oppressive and unduly burdensome;
7. Plaintiffs object to the discovery requests to the extent that they call for expert opinion
testimony in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, and/or call fora
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 Ametica;
2 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. Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests seek information protected by
plaintiff's federal, state, and common law rights of privacy;
11. Plaintiff 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 previous discovery device, and is thus harassing, oppressive and repetitious
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1960) 56 Cal.2d 423, 430);
13. Plaintiffs object to the extent that the discovery requests call for the disclosure of expert
information; and
14. Plaintiffs finther 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)
Page3Feb 22 07 10:31a _ Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 ps
Coe WAH ew
3
23
24
27
28
involved in decedent’s exposure as his employers or coworkers and sub-contractors at numerous of
decedent'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 jab sites at which decedent performed work of any
kind, plaintiffs refer to the following respoasive information as well as the more specific and
dctailed responsive information contained in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and fully incorporated
herein by this reference.
Interrogatory 1, Subsections A (work site) and B (address):
For every work 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 internet 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. Plaintiff 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 (days worked):
For each and every known job site at which decedent performed work, plaintiffs have
altempted to identify in Exhibit “A” the exact days decedent was present at such site. For those
sites where incomplete time period and/or days of work is provided, plaintiffs are currently
investigating employment records and coresponding information from decedent's employers and
identified co-workers and/or witnesses to supplement the responses to sub-section C. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to supplement these responses with such information and/or intvoduce, at trial,
such information thal is discovered after the service of these responses.
Interrogatory 1, Subscetion D (employer):
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 DEATH)
Page 4Feb 22 07 10:31a _Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 pe
investigate employment records and identified co-workers and other equally available sources to
supplement their responses 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.
Interrogatory 1, Subsections E (job title) and F (work performed):
Plaintiff have attempted to provide the most comprehensive compilation of information
relating these inquities for each work site, identified in Exhibit “A”, where decedent has worked.
For those sites where decedent’s job title or doscription 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. Plaintiifis
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 G (work with or around raw asbestos or asbestos
contai materials at the job
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 stow 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 er asbestos-containing materials and the length of time of cach.
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 recotds 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, drift and re-entrain, and sintce even invisible
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPOKSES TO GENERAL ORDER INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)
PagesFeb 22 07 10:31a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 p?
a a Aw
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 generated by other workers or trades in his vicinity and from other sources of which he may
not ever have been personally aware. Consequently, plaintiffs contend decedent was exposed to
asbestos every day be was present at a work site where asbestos was being or had been
manipulated in his general vicinity
Interrogatory 1, Section G, sub-subsection 3 (control of work/direetors):
Plaintiffs respond that the general contractors anc. 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 (i.e., names of contractors' employees responsible for
safety or direction of time, place or manner of work disturbing asbestos), plaintiffs 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
relevant named defendants in this action and such information should be availabie through
defendants' responses to case specific interrogatories from plaintiffs or through General Order
Interrogatory responses. Pleintifis reserve the right to seoplement these responses with such,
information and/or introduce, at trial, such information that is discovered after the service of these
responses
Intorrogatory 1, Subsection G. sub-subsections 4 (co-workers) and 3 (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. SET TWO (WRONGFUL DEATH)
Page 6Feb 22 07 10:31a Keller, Fishback & Jackso 818-879-8033 pa
s
a
a
sites where incomplete co-worker and/or exposure witness information is provided, plaintiffs
continue to search public databases (such as contracts, the internet and phone listings) and
investigate 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 iatroduce, at teal, such information that
is discovered after the service of these responses.
Interrogatory 1. Subsections G. sub-subsections 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 continue to search public databases and research identified co-
workers, construction contracls, building permits and defendants’ responses to standard and case
spe