Motion-Secondary: HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Suite 2600

1 Plaza
Oakiend, CA 94612-3541

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

JOHN W. RANUCCLI, State Bar No. 184801
jwr@llecllp.com

MARIA M. LAMPASONA, State Bar No, 259675

mlampasona@llclip.com

SARAH B. ANKER, State Bar No. 291924
sanker@llclp.com

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP
Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612-3541

Telephone: (510) 433-2600

Facsimile: (510) 433-2699

Attorneys for Defendant
THE HERTZ CORPORATION

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUN 24 2014

Clerk of the Court
BY: ROMY RISK
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY
KARIDIS-KOEPKE,

Plaintiffs,
v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C.
MOBILE SYSTEMS, individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and
equitable trustee of ASSOCIATED BRAKE
COMPANY and WESTERN STATES
BRAKE MANUFACTURING;
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.;
BELL INDUSTRIES INC., individually
and as successor in interest, parent, alter
ego, and equitable trustee of ROX
AUTOMOTIVE; BELNORTEL
CORPORATION, d.b.a. A.B.C. MOBILE
BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO;
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.,
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION;
BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY;
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE
SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of CONTINENTAL
TEVES, INC.; COOPER INDUSTRIES,
LLC, individually and as successor in
interest, alter ego and equitable trustee of
PNEUMO ABEX, LLC and ABEX
CORPORATION; DON L, MORRIS, INC.;
FMC CORPORATION-JOHN

00925-43319 SANKER 656529.1

Case No. CGC-13-276217

DECLARATION OF SARAH B. ANKER IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT THE HERTZ
CORPORATION’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 1.

Action Filed: | December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 19, 2014

1

DECLARATION OF SARAH B. ANKER ISO DEFENDANT HERTZ’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER |LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

1999 Harrison

Oakiand, CA 94612-3541

oD ee NY DW RB YW YD He

-

BR WwW

Oo Om YW DA

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BEAN AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT
SERVICE DIVISION of FMC
CORPORATION; FOLSOM AUTO
SUPPLY; GENUINE PARTS
COMPANY; H.M, ROYAL, INC.;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor~
In-Interest to the BENDIX
CORPORATION; KELSEY-HAYES
COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER.
DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS CORP.,
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES
VOGEL CHEVROLET COMPANY;
MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
THIOKOL CORPORATION; NATIONAL
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION;
PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION;
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
EIS BRAKE PARTS AND INDUSTRIAL
& AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
d.b.a, CALI-BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX
LLC, individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of ABEX CORPORATION; ROX
AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OIL
COMPANY; SPECIALTY FOREIGN
AUTO PARTS, INC. individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of SPECIALTY
FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD
COMPANY; THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; VOLK WAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U,S.A., INC.; W.
BERRY HURLEY CORPORATION,
dba. FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; FIRST DOE through FOUR,
HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive,

Defendants.

, Sarah B. Anker, declare as follows:

1. lam an attorney licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and

an associate at the law firm of Lombardi, Loper & Conant LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant

The Hertz Corporation. 1 have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration and

(00925-43319 SANKER 656529,1

2

DECLARATION OF SARAH B, ANKER ISO DEFENDANT HERTZ’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ILake Merr

1999 Harrison Str

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP
Oakland, CA

oOo OND OH BR WON

ye NON meet
B RRR BRR RSREBREE BH TS

if called to testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.

2. On May 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. A true and
correct copy of excerpts of that complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. In the Hertz Corporations Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set One, Hertz
requests in Special Interrogatory No. 1: “Do you contend that defendant The Hertz Corporation
acted with malice in its dealings with plaintiffs?” In Special Interrogatory No. 2 Hertz requests:
“If your response to special interrogatory number 1 is in the affirmative, state all facts on which
you base your contention.” On June 9, 2014, plaintiffs served Second Amended Responses to
The Hertz Corporation’s Special Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of that response is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. On May 8, 2014, May 21, 2014 and May 22, 2014, Matthew Fyie, Ford Motor
Company’s Person Most Qualified, was deposed. A true and correct copy of excerpts of Mr.
Fyie’s deposition transcript is attached as Exhibit C.

5. On April 25, 2014, Donna Davino, The Hertz Corporation’s Manager of Fleet
Sourcing, was deposed. A true and correct copy of excerpts of Ms. Davino’s deposition transcript
is attached as Exhibit D.

6 On June 10, 2014, Joseph Alesandro, the Hertz Corporation’s Person Most
Qualified, was deposed. A true and correct copy of excerpts of Mr. Alesandro’s deposition
transcript is attached as Exhibit E.

7. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Richard McEvily, is attached as
Exhibit F.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Oakland, California on June 24, 2014.

00925-43319 SANKER 656529. 3

DECLARATION OF SARAH B. ANKER ISO DEFENDANT HERTZ’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER |Exhibit AKazan, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
‘GREENWOOD

APROFESSIONNL LAW

CompaRaTIt
hon Lonoon rer

BS HARRISON STREET,

400
‘OaKiana, CA 94607
(510) 302-1000
FAK (510) 095-4613,

CROSCHAIONTSB.4

26
27
28

Joseph D, Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890)
jsatterley@kazanlaw.com

Carole M. Bosch, Esq. (C.S.B. #239790)
cbosch@kazanlaw.com —*
KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
A Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market
55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
Oakland, California 94607
Telephone; (516) 302-1000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- No, CGC13276217
KOEPKE,
. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, FOR PERSONAL INJURIES;
NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF
vs. WARRANTIES; STRICT
LIABILITY; FRAUD;
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C. MOBILE CONSPIRACY; PREMISES
SYSTEMS, individually and as successor in interest, | LIABILITY; NEGLIGENT
parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of UNDERTAKING; AND LOSS OF
ASSOCIATED BRAKE COMPANY and WESTERN | CONSORTIUM
STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING;
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; BELL Code of Civil Procedure §36(d)

INDUSTRIES INC., individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of
ROX AUTOMOTIVE; BELNORTEL
CORPORATION, d.b.a. A.B.C, MOBILE BRAKE
OF SAN FRANCISCO; BORGWARNER MORSE
TEC INC,, individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustce of
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION;
BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY; CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., individually and
as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of CONTINENTAL TEVES, INC.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, LLC, individually and as successor in
interest, alter ego and equitable trustee of PNEUMO
ABEX, LLC and ABEX CORPORATION; DON L.
MORRIS, INC.; FMC CORPORATION-JOHN
BEAN AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE
DIVISION; FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter
ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION
of FMC CORPORATION; FOLSOM AUTG .
SUPPLY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; H.M.
ROYAL, INC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, _|

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKazan, MOCLAit,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

[APROFESBIONAL LAMY

dhex Losoow Mewer

‘SH HadmRiGoN STREET,

‘Swine 400
‘Onxuann, CA 94507
(810) 362-1000
Fax (S10) 635-4013.

‘OBOSCHNBOT7364

23
24
25
26
27
28

Tr.

Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate or
individual of defendants sued herein as FIRST DOE through TWO HUNDRED TENTH DOE,
inclusive, and cach of them, and for that reason prays leave to insert the true names and capacities
of said defendants when the same are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is negligently, intentionally and/or
strictly liable or responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and
proximately caused injury and damages to plaintiff thereby as herein alleged.

WL.

At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent and employee of each
of the remaining defendants, and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of said
agency and employment, and each defendant has ratified and approved the acts of the remaining
defendants.

W.

Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C. MOBILE SYSTEMS, individually and
as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of ASSOCIATED BRAKE
COMPANY and WESTERN STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING; AMERICAN HONDA.
MOTOR CO, INC.; BELL INDUSTRIES INC., individually and as successor in interest, parent,
alter ego, and equitable trustee of ROX AUTOMOTIVE; BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a.
A.B.C, MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.,
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION; BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY; CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of CONTINENTAL TEVES, INC.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC, individually
and as successor in interest, alter ego and equitable trustee of PNEUMO ABEX, LLC arid ABEX
CORPORATION; DON L. MORRIS, INC.; FMC CORPORATION--JOHN BEAN
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION; FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC,

individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MCCLAIN, 25

SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD
APROFESBIONAL LAW
CaRpaRATION

Connon Moacer

Jhoxt
86 Hanmason SIREET,
suite 409

DaKiann.CA 94607
(S10) 302-7000
Fax (510) 835-4018

CBOSCHAIOT71

26
27
28

AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION of FMC CORPORATION; FOLSOM
AUTO SUPPLY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; H.M. ROYAL, INC.; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor-In-Interest to the BENDIX
CORPORATION; KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS
CORP, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ROYAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES VOGEL CHEVROLET COMPANY; MORTON INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, formerly known as MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of THIOKOL CORPORATION; NATIONAL
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION; PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of EIS BRAKE PARTS AND
INDUSTRIAL & AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.,, d.b.a. CALI-BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX
LLC, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ABEX
CORPORATION; ROX AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OIL COMPANY; SPECIALTY FOREIGN
AUTO PARTS, INC. individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A,, INC; W, BERRY HURLEY CORPORATION, d.b.a. FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST DOE through FIFTIETH DOB,
inclusive, were at all times herein and still are corporations authorized to and doing business in the
State of California.

v.

Defendants’ products at issue in this complaint consist of asbestos and asbestos-containing

products, or products as to which defendants knew or should have known that reasonably
foreseeable uses of the products would expose persons such as plaintiff whe worked with or
around the products to friable asbestos. These products were defective in their design,
manufacture, labeling, marketing and/or warning and are referred to throughout this complaint as
“asbestos” or “asbestos-containing products.”

“

BIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

APROFESSIOKAL LAW

ConPoRATON
shox Lennon Mince

25 Haamuson Sire,
wre 400

OnmANO, CA 94607
{510}302-1000
Fax (610) 835-4019,

‘CBOSCHNGO1738.1

Co @ Aw

26
27
28

i

Plaintiff by this reference hereby incorporates and makes a part hereof as though fully set
forth herein at length al! and singular the allegations contained in the First Cause of Action herein,
excepting therefrom allegations pertaining to negligence,

i

At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff a duty, as
provided for in Sections 1708 and 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of California, to abstain
from injuring the person, property or rights of the plaintiff. In violation of that duty, the
defendants, and cach of them, did do the acts and omissions, when a duty to act was imposed, as
set forth herein, thereby proximately causing injury to the plaintiff'as is more fully set forth herein.
Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1710, and more specifically were
suggestions of fact which were not trae and which the defendants did not believe to be true,
assertions of fact of that which was not true, which the defendants had no reasonable ground for
believing it to be true, and the suppression of facts when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are
more fully set forth herein, and the violation of which as to any one such item gave tise to a cause
of action for violation of the rights of the plaintiff as provided for in the aforementioned code
sections.

HL.

Since 1924, the defendants, and each of them, have known and have been possessed of the
true facts consisting of medical and scientific data and other knowledge which clearly indicated
that the materials and products referred to herein were and are hazardous to the health and safety
of the plaintiff, and others in plaintiff's position working in close proximity with such materials
and have known of the dangerous propensities of other of the aforementioned materials and
products prior to that time and with intent to deceive plaintiff, and others in his position and with

intent that he and such others should be and remain ignorant of such facts and with intent to induce

plaintiff and such others to alter their positions to their injury and/or risk and in order to gain
advantages did do the following acts:

uv

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 2Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25

SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD
avwarecsmnacten 20
Conronarion
hor Lowen saver
65 Hannison Siren, 27
Sure 400
nga, ck ag?
(510) 302-101
raxtsignaasaer, 28

CBOSCHN3Ot738.1

M4

Defendants, and each of them, did not label any of the aforementioned asbestos-
containing materials and products as to the hazards of such materials and products
to the health and safety of plaintiff and others in his position working in close
proximity with such materials until 1964, when certain of such materials were
labeled by some, but not all, of the defendants herein, when the knowledge of such
hazards was existing and known to defendants, and each of them, since 1924." By
not labeling such materials as to their said hazards defendants, and cach of them,
caused to be suggested as a fact to plaintiff and plaintiff's employers that it was safe
for plaintiff to work in close proximity to such materials when in fact it was not
true and defendants did not believe it to be true;

Defendants, and each of them, suppressed information relating to the danger of use
of the aforementioned materials by requesting the suppression of information to
plaintiff and the general public concerning the dangerous nature of the
aforementioned materials to workers by not allowing such information to be
disseminated in a manner which would give general notice to the public and
knowledge of the hazardous nature thereof when defendants were bound to disclose
such information;

Defendants, and each of them, sold the aforementioned products and materials to
plaintiff's employers and others without advising such employers and others of the
dangers of use of such materials to persons working in close proximity thereto,
when defendants knew of such dangers, as set forth herein, and, as set forth above,
had a duty to disclose such dangers. Thereby, defendants caused to be positively
asserted to plaintiffs employers of that which was not true and which defendants
had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true, in a manner not warranted by
the information possessed by said defendants, and each of them, of that which was
and is not true, to wit, that it was safe for plaintiff to work in close proximity to

such materials;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES BKAZAN, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

APROFEAGIONAL LAW

‘CORFORTION

hex Lorcon Maree

SB Hanson SaREEY,

sure 400
Oanuann, CA 94667
(510) 302-1000
nv (540) 835-4013

CBOSCHIISOT796.1

25
26
27
28

Defendants, and each of them, suppressed from everyone, including plaintiff and
plaintiff's employers, and continue to suppress, medical and scientific data and
knowledge of the accurate results of studies including, but not limited to,
suppressing information contained in the unpublished Lanza report by participating
in the influencing of A.J, Lanza to change his report, which altered version was
published in Public Health Reports, Volume 50 at page 1 in 1935, when they were
bound to disclose it unaltered, and by causing Asbestos Magazine, a widely
disseminated trade journal, to omit any mention of the dangers of inhaling asbestos
dust, thereby lessening the probability of notice of danger to those exposed to
asbestos, and thereby caused plaintiff to be and remain ignorant thereof,
Defendants, and each of them, belonged to, participated in, and financially
supported the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations which
actively promoted the suppression of information of danger to users of the
aforementioned products and materials for and on behalf of defendants, and each of
them, thereby misleading plaintiff and plaintiff's employers to their prejudice
through the suggestions and deceptions set forth above in this cause of action, The
Dust Control Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee,
of the Asbestos Textile Institute was specifically enjoined to study the subject of
dust control; discussions in such committee were held many times of (i) the dangers
inherent in asbestos and the dangers which arise from the lack of control of dust
and (ii) the suppression of such information from 1946 to a date unknown to
plaintiff at this time;

Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mil! workers at the Thetford

“asbestos mines in Quebeo, Canada, and the study of workers at Raybestos-

Manhattan plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, defendants knew
and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection between
inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated

through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 142 O&O BOD

Keazane, MOCLAWN,, 25
‘SATTERLEY &

GREENWOOD
APROFESSIONN: LAW 26
‘Conon

7K
ROK LONDON MET
SB Haaason Sincsy, 27
reAGo
‘OaKtatio, CA 94607
(510) 902-1000 9g
Fax (510) 885-4943

CBOSCHN30173041

defendants, and each of them, heréin. Between 1942 and 1950 the defendants, and
each of them, knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the
connection between inhalation of asbestos fibers and cancer, which information
was disseminated through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry
organizations to all other defendants herein. Thereby, defendants suggested as a
fact that which is not true and disseminated other facts likely to mislead plaintiff
and plaintiff's employers and which did mislead them for want of communication of
true facts which consisted of the aforedescribed medical and scientific data and
other knowledge by not giving plaintiff or plaintiff's employers the true facts
concerning such knowledge of danger, when defendants were bound to disclose it,
Failed to warn plaintiff and plaintiff's employers of the nature of the said materials,
to wit: dangerous when breathed, causing pathological effects without noticeable
trauma, when possessed with knowledge that such material was dangerous and a
threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith and under a duty to
disclose it;

Failed to provide plaintiff with information conceming adequate protective masks
and devices for use with and application and installation of the products of the
defendants, and each of them, when they knew that such protective measures were
necessary, when they were under a duty to disclose such information, and if not
advised as to use would result in injury to the plaintiff and others applying and
installing such materials;

Concealed from plaintiff the true nature of the industrial exposure of plaintifé, the
fact that they and each of them, knew that plaintiff and anyone similarly situated,
upon inhalation of asbestos would, in time develop irreversible conditions of either
pneumoconiosis, asbestosis or cancer, or all, and such person would immediately be
in not good health, the fact that he had in fact been exposed to harmful materials
and the fact that the materials to which he was exposed would cause pathological

effects without noticeable trauma, when under a duty to and bound to disclose iG

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKazan, MoCLare,
SATTERLEY &

ex MARKEE
8S HaKess0n STREET,

Sure 400
Ona.anp, CA $4607
(610) 302-4000
Fax (610) 835-4013

CBOSCHN 3017304

Oo WD

27
28

ij. Failed to provide information to the public at large and buyers, users and physicians
employed by plaintiff and plaintiff's employers for the purpose of conducting
physical examinations of plaintiff and others working in contact with asbestos as to
the true nature of the hazards of asbestos, in order for such physicians to diagnose,
and treat workers coming into contact with asbestos, in that the materials to which
plaintiff had been exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable
trauma, when under a duty to supply such information and such failure is likely to
mislead for want of commmunication of such facts; and

k Defendants, and each of them, affirmatively misrepresented that asbestos

containing products were safe to use and handle, when they knew such statements
were false when made, or made said false statements recklessly and without regard
for whether the statements were true.

IV.

Bach of the foregoing acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances to act when a duty
existed to act, the said defendants, and each of them, having such knowledge, knowing plaintiff
did net have such knowledge and would breathe such material innocently, was done falsely and
fraudulently and with full intent to induce plaintiff to work ina dangerous environment and to
cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts, all in violation of Section 1710 of the Civil
Code of the State of California.

Vv.

Plaintiff relied upon the said acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances; had plaintiff

known the true facts, plaintiff would not have continued to work in the said environment.
Vi

By feason of the aforesaid premises, plaintiff has been damaged in his health, strength and

activity in addition to special damages hereinabove alleged.
VIL
Each of the said acts and forbearances to act were caused by false, fraudulent and malicious

motives of the defendants, and each of them, and plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 16KAZAN, MOCLAIN,
‘SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD:

APRORESRIONAL LAW

* CORFORATION.
Rox Loncon Marie
68 Hagreson STREET,
Sure 400
Onsen, CA $4807

4519) 802-1000
Fax (610) 635-4013.

OBOSCHN 3017981

25
26
27
28

L General damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 in accordance with the proof;

2. Damages for fraud and conspiracy in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 in
accordance with prooft

3. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount found appropriate by the trier of fact

in accordance with the proof;

4, Special damages in accordance with the proof

5. Prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest in accordance with law;

6. Costs of suit; and

7, “Such other and further relief’ as the Court deems just and proper in the premises,

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Harold Koepke prays judgment against defendants, conspirators
and their “alternate entities,” and each of them as follows:

1, General damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 in accordance with the proof

2. Damages for fraud and conspiracy in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 in
accordance with proof:

3. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount found appropriate by the trier of fact
in accordance with the proof,

4. Special damages in accordance with the proof;

5, Prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest in accordance with law;

6. Costs of suit; and

7. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the premises,
DATED; May 1, 2014 KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD

A Professional Law Corporation

EGE. RE.
By LEE Li for
Joseph B. Satterley, Esq

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 50Exhibit BKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corposation

* Oakland, California 94607

+ Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www-kazanlaw.com

* 53 Hasxison Street, Suite 409,

(S10) 302-1900

Jack London Market

oS Oo Oe UN DW FW we He

YN YP NM YM NR Dm EE ome mee oe
ea A & 8 6 8B 2 S$ SF ek DR REG H =F

85563579

dun 09 2014
40:09AM

Joseph Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890)
JSatterley@kazanlaw.com

Carole Bosch, Esq. (C.S.B. #239790)
CBosch@kazanlaw.com

KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD

A Professional Law Corporation.

Jack London Market

35 Harrison Street, Suite 400

Oakland, California 94607

Telephone: (510) 302-1000

Facsimile: (510} 835-4913

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- | Case No. CGC13276217
KOEPKE,

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
RESPONSES TO THE HERTZ,
V8. CORPORATION’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Action Filed: December 3, 2013
Defendants. Trial Date: June 16, 2014

PROPOUNDING PARTY: THE HERTZ CORPORATION

RESPONDING PARTY: HAROLD KORPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE
SET NO.: ONE

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks

information equally available to defendants, seeks to ascertain the identification of consultant
expert witnesses, the premature disclosure of trial witnesses, or the anticipated testimony of said
witnesses, and as such violates the attorney work-product doctrine, City of Long Beach v, Sup. Ci.
(1976) 64 Cal App.3d 65, 80-81. Based on a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain responsive
information under C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), and without waiving any objection, plaintiffs respond:

Yes,

13146171 I
REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

‘A Professional Law Composation
Jack Londion Market * 5 Harrison Steeet, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607

(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + gnverkazaalaw.com

AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Plaintiffs object ta this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks
information equally available to defendants, secks to ascertain the identification of consultant
expert witnesses, the premature disclosure of trial witnesses, or the anticipated testimony of said
witnesses, and as such violates the attorney work-product doctrine. City of Long Beach v. Sup. Ct.
(1976) 64 Cal App.3d 65, 80-81. Based on a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain responsive
information under C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), and without waiving any objection, plaintiffs respond:
The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) is a car rental company that started in 1918. The Hertz rental
fleet consists of a wide majority of vehicle manufacturers, including but not limited to Fords,
Chrysler, General Motors, Mercury, Lincoln, Toyota, along with various others. Hertz operates
rental facilities around the United States including locations in the San Francisco Bay Area such as
Millbrae, CA and Burlingame, CA. In 1985, Hertz joined UAL Corporation. On December 30,
1987, Hertz was sold to “Park Ridge Corporation,” which was then owned by Ford Motor
Company and members of Hertz senior management.

Harold’s Automotive had a contract with Hertz beginning in approximately 1980 or 1981.
Under this contract, Harold's Automotive performed safety checks and all required repair work
(including brake jobs) on Hertz cars that had reached the end of their rental lives prior to selling
them. These were all fairly new vehicles, between 0-2 years old. Hertz had a requirement that if
there was more than 50% of wear on brakes, they had to be replaced by Harold's Automotive. At
least 50% of the Hertz cars ended up requiring brake jobs. Hertz supplied all replacement parts
used for repairs on the Hertz fleet cars by Harold’s Automotive from the Hertz parts department.
This included Hertz’s supply of Bendix asbestos-containing brakes for installation. Harold's
Automotive was not allowed to supply any of the parts used on the Hertz cars. Hertz had its own
repair and maintenance facility by the San Francisco Airport, where it also performed safety
checks and repair work,

Hertz knew or should have known since at least the 1940s that asbestos exposure causes
irreversible disease and death, yet never placed wamings on the products it provided to Mr.

Koepke. Hertz was and is a large corporation employing highly educated and skilled officers,

1314617. 2
REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

4 Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market + $5 Hanson Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607

(810) 302-1000 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com

CS Se ITD A KR YW BH

PNR Pp NR NB NON BM Dow Be ee me bet amt _
eo NA A RB OY § S Se ARBRE SP FS

managers and other personnel and therefore well situated to obtain and know this information.

As of 1987, Hertz was owned by the Ford Motor Company. In 1967, Ford evaluated the
asbestos exposures of its own workers in response to a union grievance, and expressed concern
over an asbestosis hazard. (D.A. Greshaw, "Health Grievance, Mix Room, Heater and AC’ Plant,"
June 2, 1967). In 1968, Ford's industrial hygienist D.E. Hickish reported on the exposures of
mechanics to asbestos during the servicing of brakes, (DE. Hickish, “Exposure to Asbestos
during the Servicing of Brakes of Passenger Cars," July 1968). In March 1969, defendant Ford
held a conference in Great Britain on asbestos exposures from brake repair (published in 1970 in
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume 13). At the conference, it was acknowledged there
were concerns over health hazards, and it was suggested that dealers be advised and service
manuals amended as appropriate. Ford researchers began testing disc brakes in 1970 to see the
amount of asbestos released from brake wear. At that time, Ford acknowledged it was aware of
Dr. Irving Selikoff's work in the field of asbestos disease epidemiology, and in fact had a private
communication with him and had invited him to speak at Ford on asbestos, Ford's chemist George
Bauer, concerned that asbestos exposures exceeded allowable limits, considered substitute
materials. Ford's manufacturing plants were not controlling asbestos dust, and exceeded OSHA.
limits. By 1971, Ford began using sintered metal linings and semi-metallic brakes, but only for
certain applications as they were too costly. In 1972, Ford Scientific Research Staff member
Serge Gratch asked about efforts to eliminate the use of asbestos in at least some applications,
Ford was aware of its obligation, unfulfilled though it was, to conduct medical monitoring of its
employees, and knew that at least one worker had been exposed in excess of allowable limits as of
1973. Ford acknowledged that same year that its workers were exposed from dust that occurred
from dropping wheels and blowing off brake assemblies and drums, and Ford's industrial hygienist
recommended measures to comply with regulations, which included that all blow-off be strictly
probibited. In 1973, Ford also did testing that measured exposures in excess of the applicable
standards, (Charles E. Plasters, “Asbestos in Air Sampling~Research and Engineering Center,"
August 20, 1973). Ford's industrial hygienist Paul Toth, noting that studies had demonstrated

overexposure to asbestos in brake rebuilding and inspection operations, criticized compressed air

IBM4617.1 3 .
REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Cosporation
Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, Califomia 94607

(G10) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 > www:kazanlaw.com

So OU mR KR Hh RB Bw

BN YPN YN BON Dom mee vette
ea Ao F SNS = F&F FF AABE BE

blow-off as the main cause and urged an end to the practice, in addition io other suggestions for
minimizing exposures. ("Vehicle Brake Rebuilding," August 3, 1973). Ford soon ordered that the
use of compressed air be discontinued in it General Parts Division, and that certain precautions be
taken to prevent overexposure to asbestos. Brake blow out, however, continued to be a problem in
Ford's plants, particularly where management did not provide the equipment necessary for the
work. In 1975, Dr. Selikoff was hosted by Ford at a conference at its Scientific Research Center,
where he described four cases of mesothelioma, Ford was invited to and attended mectings with
NIOSH officials about health problems and asbestos exposure in 1975. Ford was aware of, and in
fact worked on, ways to avoid asbestos exposures, such as the use of vacuum equipment and
solvent washing, and knew such methods were commercially available, While Ford told its
dealers in 1975 to used vacuum cleaners for cleaning brakes, it made mere mention of “a potential
health hazard" and did not pass this information along to end users and consumers. By 1977,
when Ford got around to providing instructions and warnings in its car shop manuals, the warning
was still tepid at best. Ford did not warn on the packaging of its products that were sold to the
public until 1980 which used the 1972 OSHA asbestos standard language. Ford did not ultimately
phase out the use of asbestos until 1997, Ford had other sources of knowledge regarding the
dangers.of asbestos, particularly as a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation from 1947-
1974. As a member, Ford received the Industrial Hygiene Digest, which included a number of
articles on the health hazards of asbestos exposure. Despite this

Despite what it knew of should have known, Hertz never warned anyone, including
‘plaintiff Harold Koepke, that its asbestos-containing products could cause cancer and
mesothelioma and that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos to avoid contracting
mesothelioma from which plaintiff Harold Koepke suffers. The failure to disclose the nature of
defendant’s asbestos-containing products can only be considered as intentional, Defendant's acts
of concealment and failure to warn of the risks, dangers and potential harm of its asbestos-
containing products was done in conscious or reckless disregard of the health and safety of others,
including plaintiffs. Defendant is also liable to plaintiffs under the theories of strict liability,

breach of warranty, negligence, fraud; failure to warn, concert of action, and loss of consortium.

13146171 4
—IN REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corporation

Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 » Oakland, California 94607

10} 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www-kavanlaw.com

2 0 AD

Witnesses with information regarding Hertz’ supply of asbestos product 1o Mr. Koepke for
repairs include Hertz’ employees and former employees in this case: Jim Bell, Donna Davino,
Vito Catania, Scott P. Sider, Frank Olson, Dennis Blake, Tony Alexander, Monty Cangiamilla,
Steve Feisty, Tom Black, Bob Huber, Bill Harrison, Al Belaquez, Dale Jones, Ron Lee, Ed Lee,
Jim Capley, Mark Frissora, Elyse Douglas, Joseph F. Eckroth, Lois Boyd, Michel Taride.
Witnesses also include Hertz’ person most qualified and Plaintiff and mechanics James Nash,
Lawrence Krasnow, and Craig Clifton.

Plaintiff refers defendant to the deposition testimony and all exhibits attached thereto of
Jim Bell, Donna Dayino, Vito Catania, Ed Lee, and Hertz’s person most qualified in this case.

Plaintiff refers defendant to the deposition and all exhibits attached thereto of plaintiff
Harold Koepke’s co-workers James Nash taken February 13 and March 10, 2014, Lawrence
Krasnow taken February 24-25, 2014, Wayne Brotze taken February 28, 2014 and March 21,
2014, Robert Segale taken February 21, 2014, and Craig Clifton taken March 5, 2014 all taken in
the instant matter, reported by Aiken & Welch Court Reporters (510) 451-1580 and JV
Killingsworth & Assoc., jvk@reddingdepos.com.

Plaintiff refers defendant to the testimony ~ and all exhibits thereto -- of Ford’s Person
Most Qualified Matthew Fyie in this case.

Defendant is directed to the contents of its own records and files, including but not limited
to: contracts, agreements, communications, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries of
records of telephone conversations, summaries of records of personal conversations or interviews,
diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, illustrations, sketches,
photographs, maps, minutes, summaries of records or meetings or conferences, summaries or
reports of investigations or negotiations, opinions or reports of consultants and any and all other
writings as that term is defined by California Evidence Code, § 250 produced in this case.

Plaintiff refers defendant to the following documents, all of which ave equally available to
defendant or are already in defendant's possession:

Defendant Ford Motor Company's “Brake Assembly and Lining Suppliers;”.

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Asbestos Friction Document Collection;

1344617. 5
REPONSES 'TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Cosporatton
Jack Loadoa Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607

+ www.kazaglaw.com

(510) 302-1600 + Fax: (510) 835-4013

CO 82 WA WH mR WD om

DPN P NY YN NR Dome me Oe tate
oe ~ KR A BGS =| SF SSE AAA SSeS

Defendant’s responses if any to Plaintifis' Standard Interrogatories to Defendants (General
Order 29 and 129) in re San Francisco County Complex Asbestos Litigation; responses to Los
Angeles County Superior Court's Standard Interrogatories GO Nos. 12 and 17; responses to
Alameda County Dieden Interrogatories; and defendant's responses to discovery in asbestos
litigation throughout the United States;

Documents, discovery responses, trial documents and trial exhibits produced by plaintiffs
and Ford in Svoft v. Allied Packing, et al. ACSC RG12613671; Smith v. Chrysler LLC, et al.,
LASC BC396072; Bankhead y, Allied Packing, et al, ACSC RG10502243; and Stillman v, Allied
Packing, et al., ACSC RG10528222;

Transcripts of trial and deposition testimony and all exhibits thereto of:

Mark Taylor, taken July 9, 2008 in Kolasinski v. Acme Liquidation Corp., et al., InRe:
Eighth Judicial District Litigation, reported by Laura Steenbergh, Priority-One Court Reporting
(718)983-1234, July 30, 2008 in Russel v. Alcatel-Lucent Managed Solutions, et al., Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC38030, reported by Bobbie Jo Harr, HG Litigation Services (888)656-
DEPO, August 26, 2008 in Clawson v, ACandS, Inc, et al, San Francisco Superior Court Case
No. CGC08-274597, reported by Cheryl Wilder, Tooker & Antz (415)392-0650, September 11,
2008 in Rehm v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Jefferson Circuit Court, Division
Eight, Case No, 01-CI-01344, reported by Laurel Frogner, Hanson Renaissance Court Reporting
(313)567-8100, September 16, 2008 in Bretzke v. Ford Motor Company, et al., State of
Minnesota, County of Ramsey, No. 62-CV-08-1189, January 20, 2009 in Smith v. Chrysler LEC,
et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No, BC396072, reported by Toni VanSyckle, HG
Litigation Services (888)656-DEPO, February 24, 2009 in Burger v. Amcord, Inc., et ai., Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC370746, reported by Toni VanSyckle, HG Litigation
Services (888)656-DEPO, June 8, 2009 in Goebel v. Bondex International, Inc., et al., Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC390954, reported by Shirley Koch-Smith, HG
Litigation Services (888)656-DEPO, September 16, 2009 in Petros v. 3M Company, et al.,
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG09429427, reported by Catherine Meyer, Aiken
Welch (510)451-1580, December 15, 2009 in Toole v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, et al., Miller County

S314607.1 6
ee REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Comporation

* Oakland, California $4607

+ wwwkaranlawcom

(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913

Jack London Market * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400

eo © IT A mM RB WwW wm

tee
Noo 2S

13

Superior Court, Georgia, No. 2009-V-113, reported by Cynthia Ann Chyla, Hanson Renaissance
Court Reporters (3 13)567-8100, January 25, 2010 in Williams v. Ford Motor Company, et al.,
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, No. 09-L-537, reported by Kathy O’Donnell,
PohhnanUSA Court Reporting (877)421-0099, March 22, 2010 in Dixon vy. Bandex International,
Jne., ot al., Circuit Court for Baltimore City, No. 24X08000322, reported by Elizabeth Tubbert,
Evans Reporting Service (800)256-8410, September 2, 2010 in Bankhead v. Allied Packing &
Supply, Jne., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG10502243, reported by Trisha
Houpt, Atkinson-Baker (800)288-3376, September 16, 2010 in Chavan v. 3M Corporation, et al.,
New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, No. MID-L-10456-08AS, reported by Tanya
Croce-Potts, Brody Deposition Services (908)789-2000, October 7, 2010 in Haynes v. Asbestos
Corporation, Ltd, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC08-274647, reported by Gail
Heck, Tooker & Antz (415)392-0650, May 19, 2011 in Boomer v. Abex Corporation, et al.,
Circuit Court for Albemarle County, Virginia, No. CL05-010647-00, reported by Sharon Julian,
Cavalier Reporting (434)293-3300, May 23, Jume 25 and July 21, 2011 in Stillman v, Allied
Packing & Supply, Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No, RG10528222, reported
respectively by Denise Lombardo, Paula Raskin and Amy Reckling, Aiken Welch (510)451-1580,
July 7, 2011 in Ginter v. Ford Motor Company, New York Supreme Court, Erie County, No.
4061-2010, reported by Lynn Ricketts, July 14, 2011 in Steiner v. Advance Auto Parts, et al.,
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 1374169, reported by Shirley Koch-Smith, HG
Litigation (888)656-DEPO, Paasch v. Crane Co., et al., Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial
District, Pennsylvania, No. 0445, July 12, 2012 in Scott v, Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., et al.,
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG12613671, reported by Carol Schilp, Aiken Welch
(510)451-1580, December 6, 2012 and January 4, 2013 in D’dlotio v. A.W. Chesterton, et al.,
Circuit Court, Cook County Hlinois, No. 2012-L-1420, reported by Kristin DeCasas, Veritext
Reporting (800)472-0445;

Arnold Anderson, taken December 8, 1987 in Konstantin v, Fibreboard Corporation, et
al, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 564538-L,, teported by Andrea Epan, Luzod
Reporting Service (962-1176, September 23, 1994 in Hamilton v. illinois Central Railroad

1314617.) “ 7
REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

4, Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market + 55 Hazcison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, Califonna 94607

(520) 302-1000 + Pax: (510) 835-4913 + wow kavanlaw.com

Company, et ai,, Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, Hinds County, Mississippi, No. 93-75-32,
reported by Ana Morales, McCorkle Court Reporters (312)263-0052, September 13, 1995 in
Cornelius v. Abex Corporation, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 946512, reported by
Denise Lombardo, Aiken Welch (510)451-1580, November 7, 1997 in Storem v. Abex
Corporation, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 963257, reported by Mark Banta,
Tooker & Antz (415)392-0650, May 6, 1999 in Bouldin y. Abex Corporation, et al. in the District
Court of Brazoria County, Texas, 239th Judicial District, reported by Patricia Hankerd, Chapa &
Giblin (3 13)961-2288, June 8, 1999 in Book v. Asbestos Defendents (BHC), San Francisco
Superior Court Case No, 999220, reported by Dennis Giblin, Chapa & Giblin (313)961-2288, May
15, 2001 in Wilson v. Able Supply Company, et al., District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, 23"
Judicial District, No. 11664*BH00, reported by C. Lucy Hershey, Esquire Deposition Services
(313)961-5560, February 8, 2003 in Arndf v. AlliedSignal, Inc., et al., Washington State Superior
Court, King County, No. 00-2-23169-SSEA, reported by Susan Lowry, Naegeli Reporting
(800)528-3335;

Jack Ridenour taken December 9, 1983 in Vaughn v. Raymark Industries, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No. 82-1655-C(A),
reported by William Rittinger, Mister Reporter Court Reporters, 3211 Commonwealth Building,
Detroit, Michigan 46226, (313) 963-5505, and taken November 23, 1998 in Charbonneau y.
Asbestos Defendants (BHC), SFSC 988234, reported by Joanne Smith, Chapa & Giblin,
(313)961-2288; ,

Lawrence Roslinski taken April 30, 2003 in Hooper v, Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corporation, et al., State of Texas in the 162nd Judicial District Court for the County of Dallas,
Cause No. 00-03692-L, reported by Kathy Calo, Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video (248)644-
8888, September 4, 2003 in Miller v, ACandS, Inc., et al, , District Court 260th Judicial District,
Orange County, Texas, No. 02049-C, reported by Toni Van Syekle, Henjum Goucher Reporting
Services, (888)656-DEPO, November 23, 2004 in Hunton v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., et al.,
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Warren Circuit Court, Division Two, No, 02-CI-1273, reported by
Laurel Frogner, Hanson Renaissance Court Reporting (313)567-8100, October 3 and 4, 2005 in

I3I4617.4 g
™ REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corporation
+ 55 Harrison Street, Suite 490 + Oakland, Califoola 94607

(S10) 302-1000 + Pax: (510) 835-4913 + wow.karanlaw.con

Jack Londoa Market

ce ND WH RB WY Dm

BN YP MRM BP NR RM Dore mm me ae i
ey AA S 8 HS = F& FSF WRRET SE TS

Honer v. Aqua Chem, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC323721, reported by Toni Van
Syckle, Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, (888)656-DEPO; January 3, 2008 in Guerra v.
Bondex International, Inc., et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No, BC365479,
reported by Anne Chilton, HG Litigation Services (888)656-DEPO, March 17, 2009 in Rehm v.
Navistar International Corporation, et al., State of Kentucky, Jefferson Circuit Court, Division
Bight, No. 01~-C1-01344, reported by Anita Flanagan, Reliance Court Reporting (313)964-3611,
August 8, 2011 in Durham v, General Electric Company, et al., Jefferson Circuit Court, Division
Eleven, reported by Richard Coulter, Coulter Reporting (502)582-1627;

Kathleen Corpus, taken July 29, 2011 in Stillman v, Allied Packing, ef al, ACSC
RG10528222, reported by Aiken & Welch Court Reporters (510) 451-1580; December 15, 2005
in Dietiker v, Ford Motor Company, et al., Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at
Independence, No: 03CV218799, reported by Joanne Smith, CSR No, 3099, Bienenstock Court
Reporting & Video, (248)644-8888, taken January 6, 2010 in Brown v. 4. W. Chesterton Company,
et ai., ACSC RG09454805, reported by Diana Gonzalez, Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite
505, Oakland, California, (510)451-1580, and taken March 17, 2009 in Rehm, et ai. v. Navistar
International, et al., Jefferson Circuit Court, State of Kentucky Case No. CA No, 01-CI-01344,
reported by Reliance Court Reporting, (313) 964-3611;

Albert Rocker, taken August 10, 2006 in In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation, All
Weitz & Luxenberg Cases v. Ford Motor Corporation, New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, No. 40,000/88, reported by Victoria Rohl, Priority-One Court Reporting Services
(718)761-0527;

Henry Lick, taken May 4, 1998 in Block v. Maremont Corporation, et al., District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 215" Judicial District, No, 94-007165, reported by Patricia Murray, Patricia
Murray & Associates (313)995-9545; October 13, 2000 in Bogan v. Able Supply Company, et al.,
District Court of Harris County, Texes, 16" Judicial District, No. 2000-38752, reported by Carrie
Cole, Chapa & Giblin G13)961 -2288, March 18, 2002 in Holland v. Ford Motor Company, et al.,
Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Obio, No. 2001CV00491, reported by Elizabeth LaBarge,

Esquire Deposition Services (313)961-5560, December 4, 2002 in Rehm v. Navistar International

13146171 9
REPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market + 55 H