Preview
IOI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-12-2014 9:31 am
Case Number: CGC-13-276217
Filing Date: Jun-11-2014 9:23
Filed by:
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04515485
ORDER
HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al
001004515485
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
+ 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 ° Oakland, California 94607
(S10) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www-kazanlaw.com
Jack London Matket
e
Coe YN DO Hh B® ww WD
yb Ne Ye NY YY MY N MY YDS = —
e2 Yuga SEF FS Fe WAGDEBDOH AS
Ted Pelletier, Esq. (C.S.B. # 172938)
Julianna M. Rivera, Esq. (C.S.B. # 290955)
JRivera@kazanlaw.com I
KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD s any atte of Callfomia
A Trofessional Law Corporation
Jack London Market
55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 YUN 11 2014
Oakland, California 94607
Telephone: (510) 302-1000 CLERK OF THE COURT
Facsimile: (510) 835-4913 BY. x
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- | Case No. CGC13276217
KOEPKE,,
Assigned For All Purposes To:
Plaintiffs, Hon. Teri L. Jackson, Dept. 503
vs. [PROPO }] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’
EVID. TARY OBJECTIONS IN
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., s ORT OF OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT BELL INDUSTRIES,
Defendants. INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Date: June 11, 2014
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 503
Action Filed: December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 16, 2014
MATERIAL OBJECTED GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING
TO:
1. Plaintiffs object to the Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
Declaration of Coreen A. experience to offer opinions on Sustained: ___
Robbins in its entirety. epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. ce
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Overruled:
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist. Dr.
1313349.1 1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood.
A Professional Law Corporation
+ $5 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Onldand, California 94607
(810) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com
Jack London Market
eo em NH HW KRW NY
eet
eo QD A HW BF WN SF SG
i9
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid, Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Yet Dr. Robbins does both in her
declaration. Therefore, this Court should
disregard any such opinions offered by
Dr. Robbins.
2. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 5:4-12 (J 8): “Mr.
‘Koepke's testimony and court
documents claim he had
asbestos exposure from work
with and around Rox
Automotive products supplied
by Bell Industries; however,
Mr, Koepke and his attorneys
are not trained in determining
if where, when, or how much,
asbestos exposure is likely to
occur in any setting. Mr.
Koepke's contact with Rox
lproducts comprised a small
percentage of the automotive
products around which he
lworked. Additionally, Mr.
Koepke had numerous
opportunities for exposure to
airborne asbestos fibers,
including amphibole types,
during wartime childhood in
Germany, during his residence
in Hamburg until 1960, and
during his early training and
career as a sheet metal worker
due to asbestos-containing
materials present and handled
in his work environment.”
Speculation, Lacks foundation, and
|Assumes Facts Not in Evidence: This
paragraph is a mere conclusory statement
that is unsupported by any evidentiary
facts. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800,
802, 803.] Specifically, Dr. Robbins
provides no foundation that Mr. Koepke
lwas actually exposed to asbestos while
lworking as a sheet metal worker, rather
Dr. Robbins relies on studies that sheet
Imetal workers are generally exposed to
asbestos during their work to reach that
conclusion. Dr. Robbins also fails to lay
lany foundation that Mr. Koepke was
lexposed to asbestos during the time he
lived in Germany.
Sustained:
Overruled:_|Y
3. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 10:27-11:27 (24):
“OPINION: Mr. Koepke was
not employed as a vehicle
mechanic; therefore, his
exposure, if any, while
engaged in occasional vehicle
repairs would more likely be
lower than the average
exposures of those employed
as vehicle mechanics. In
addition, Mr. Koepke had no
confirmed contact with brakes,
(clutches, or gaskets supplied
Speculation, Lacks foundation, and
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: This
paragraph concludes that Mr. Koepke had
ino confirmed contact with brakes, but Mr.
Koepke testified he sometimes sanded
‘brake linings at the Sheil Station and
(Harold’s Automotive. [Evid. Code §§
210, 403, 405, 800, 802, 803; Koepke
[Depo, Ex. 2 to Rivera Decl. at 628:19-
630:23, 1199:14-1202:18, 1263:1-
1264:11, 1260:16-1262:17] Therefore,
this opinion lacks foundation.
Sustained:
Overruled:
Zz
1313349.1
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
‘A Professional Law Corporation
55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 °’ Oakland, California 94607
Jack London Market *
www.kazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 »
om YN DW RB WHY
RoR YM YN NY NY De aa
ent AW F&F YW YN &§ Se wow BR AH & WKH SK
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
iby Rox Automotive and Rox
supplied a small percentage of
the total brakes, clutches, and
gaskets used at Mr. Koepke's
shops. This contact, if any,
‘with Rox brakes, clutches, and
gaskets was minimal and
possibly absent altogether. In
ithe absence of contact with
Rox brakes, clutches, and
gaskets, Mr. Koepke could not
Inave had exposure to any
airborne asbestos from these
parts.”
4. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 11:8-10 (25):
“Asbestos-related diseases in
vehicle mechanics have been
extensively studied and data in
these studies show that
lworkers with this occupation
Ihave no increased risk of
mesothelioma.”
5, Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 11:11-24 (J 26):
Numerous epidemiologic
studies, including cohort
mortality, case control, and
proportionate mortality studies
Ihave addressed the risk of
mesothelioma in vehicle
mechanics and brake
repairmen (Agudo 2000;
Coggon 1995; Gustavsson
1990; Hansen 1989; Hodgson
1997; Jarvbolm 1988;
McDonald 1980; Milham
2001; Olsen 1987; Rake 2009;
Spirtas 1985; Teschke 1997;
Teta 1983; Woitowitz 1994),
For data in four of these
studies, no risk ratios could be
calculated because too few (0,
1, or 2) cases of mesothelioma
lwere seen in vehicle
mechanics or brake repairmen
(Gustavsson 1990; Hansen.
fs Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D, in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an-epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Sustained:
Overruled:
1313349.1
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market ° 55 Harzison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607
+ Fax: (510) 835-4913 * wwwikazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000
oe NA HW BF WY =
we NON NY NY NN BD wee eis
oa AA Fk Oo YN &§ SF oO we I DH BW HY BS So
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
1989; Jarvholm 1988; Olsen.
1987). For data in all of the
remaining studies, risk ratios
lwere less than or equal to 1.0,
indicating that there was no
increase in the risk of
mesothelioma among vehicle
mechanics and brake
repairmen. Coggon (Coggon
1995) commented:
“Notable for an absence of
significant risk are motor
mechanics, ... about whom
concerns have been raised
because of the presence of”
asbestos in brake linings. It
seems that this exposure has
Ino important effect on
mortality from
lmesothelioma...”
6. Declaration of Corecn A.
Robbins at 11:25-12:6 (4 27):
“Wong (2001) conducted a-
meta-analysis based on six
case-control studies and
calculated a combined relative
risk of 0.90 (Agudo 2000;
McDonald 1980; Spirtas 1985;
Teschke 1997; Teta 1983;
Woitowitz 1994; Wong
'2001).Goodman (2004) later
conducted a meta-analysis of
seven studies addressing the
risk of mesothelioma in
vehicle mechanics, Studies
included five case-control
studies considered by Wong
plus two published after his
meta-analysis (Goodman
2004; Hansen 2003; Hessel
2004). One of the two new
studies (Hessel 2004) was a
follow-up of a study Wong had
used (Spirtas 1985). Goodman
categorized the quality of
studies as Tier I (better) or
Tier II (acceptable) according
to their methodological
strengths or weaknesses, and
found meta-relative risks of
0.92 (Tier T) and 0.82 (Tier ID).
(Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
‘Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
lopinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ -720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Overruled:
1313349.1
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJ
Sustained:Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
* Oakland, California 94607
+ -wwwkazanlaw.com
+ 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913
Jack London Market
MATERIAL OBJECTED GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: [RULING
TO:
These meta-analyses data
support the conclusion that
‘vehicle mechanics do not have
an increased risk of
mesothelioma.”
7. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 12:7-11 (J 28): “In
addition, Laden (Laden 2004)
reviewed the literature from
1966 to 2003 for studies on
occupations and
Imesothelioma, They found and
reviewed six studies of cancer
that at least mentioned
mesothelioma and vehicle
mechanics, and another
thirteen studies that were
focused on mesothelioma and
also mentioned vehicle
mechanics. Not one of these
nineteen studies found an
association between work as a
vehicle mechanic and
Imesothelioma.”
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Sustained:
‘Overruled:
8. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 12:12-22 (§ 29):
Studies published subsequent
to the meta-analyses discussed
above confirm the lack of
significantly increased risk of
mesothelioma or death from
mesothelioma for vehicle
mechanics. Proportionate
mortality was significantly
reduced (PMR 48, 95% CI 37-
62) for British "motor
mechanics" for the 1980 to
2000 period (McElvenny
2005). Mesothelioma risk was
not significantly elevated in a
British case-control study for
the occupational group that
included motor mechanics
(odds ratio 1.1 95% CI 0.5-
2:2)(Rake 2009).In this study,
the occupational group that
included motor mechanics was
categorized a priori at "low
risk" of asbestos exposure and
disease based on the Standard
[Occupational Code. details of
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
(Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbias.
‘Sustained:
Overruled: v
1313349.1
5
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
reet, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
* www.kazanlaw.com
+ Fax: (510) 835-4913,
g
£
d
8
g
8
=
Jack London Market
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
|
IGROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
the job or location and an
average PMR of less than 100
(Peto 2009; Rake 2009). A
recent study of French
industries and occupations at
risk for mesothelioma found
Ino association for risk of this
disease for the industry of
"motor vehicle repair" or the
occupation of "motor vehicle
mechanic" (Rolland 2010).”
9. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 12:23-27- (§ 30):
“Exposures to airborne
asbestos fibers have been
shown to be very low for
common vehicle mechanic
tasks involving potentially
asbestos-containing parts.
These data indicate that
mechanic work with or near
potentially asbestos-containing
vehicle parts would not
increase the risk for the
development of mesothelioma.
This is consistent with and
supportive of the
epidemiologic findings of no
increased risk of asbestos-
related disease for vehicle
mechanics.”
Dr.|Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
lopinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
lopinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Sustained:
Overruled:
10. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 12:28-13:10 (4 31):
“OPINION: Chrysotile
asbestos fiber exposure, if any,
is negligibly low for full-time
career vehicle mechanics; and
epidemiologic studies show
that as an occupational group
they are not at increased risk
of developing mesothelioma.
Mr. Koepke was not a full-
time career vehicle mechanic.
Therefore, his exposure, if any,
hwould be lower than the
laverage exposures of those
employed as full-time vehicle
imechanics. Accordingly, it is
not scientifically supported
that Mr. Koepke's exposure to
lchrysotile fibers, if anv. due to
[Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on.
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
[Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Heaith, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
[Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Sustained: vw
Overruled:
1313349.1
6
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Coxporation
* 35 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
(510) 302-1000 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 » www-karanlaw.com
Jack London Market
oN TN
oo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATERIAL OBJECTED
TO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
the occasional personal vehicle
mechanic work he performed
and/or handling of vehicle
parts, whether or not it
included Rox Automotive
parts or products, could be a
substantial factor in the
development of his
mesothelioma. In addition, Mr.
Koepke had no confirmed
contact with Rox Automotive
parts, thus in the absence of
thus contact, exposure io
lasbestos-containing Rox
Automotive parts is precluded
and would not be a substantial
factor in the development of
Mr. Koepke's mesothelioma.
11. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 14:8-15 (4 35): “As
described previously, potential
asbestos exposure has been
found to be low for vehicle
mechanics, and epidemiologic
studies show that these
workers are not at increased
risk of mesothelioma. Potential
exposure to airborne asbestos,
if any, for bystanders in
mechanic shops or garages are
much lower compared to that
for mechanics (Donovan
2011).Since Mr. Koepke was
mot a mechanic the airborne
fiber concentrations to which
lhe might have been exposed
during his years operating his
businesses would have been
Iminiscule, if any, and clearly
insignificant compared to the
potential exposures for
‘mechanics from their work on
Imany vehicles and/or as
bystanders to other mechanic's
lwork.”
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins
Sustained:
Overruled: v
12. Declaration of Corcen A.
Robbins at 15:22-16:1 (4 39):
“OPINION: For an office
manager in a room separate
from the service area and for
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
lexperience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
an_occasional visitor to the
1313349.1
and Health, and a Ph.D, in Environmental
Sustained:
en
7
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Sattetley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
+ 53 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607
(510) 302-4000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 *
www.kazanlaw.com
Jack London Market
oo ny A UV Fk W NY
mw MY NY NR NY NY N NY DY Bee Re Ee Ee Se OS RE
oOo mau A mW Fs Bo NHN SF SO we I DA FF wWwN & S
from Rox Automotive
products or parts, would not be
a substantial factor in the
development of his
Imesothelioma.”
MATERIAL OBJECTED GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING
TO:
garage arca of Mr. Koepke’s Health Science. While she may be
shops, the opportunity for any qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
airborne asbestos exposure is Robbins is not qualified to offer any
even less than the insignificant _ opinions as an epidemiologist nor
exposure levels experienced by _ [qualified to provide medical causation
vehicle mechanics. It is opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
scientifically unsupported that _ | Therefore, this Court should disregard
chrysotile asbestos dust could _|these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
pose a mesothelioma risk
under the conditions
lexperienced by Mr. Koepke
lwhen no such increased risk
exists for a vehicle mechanic.
Thus, it is evident that Mr.
Koepke's occasional potential
‘bystander exposure, if any,
13. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 16:3-19 (¥f 40):
Asbestos was used in a wide
variety of products and
processes from the 1940s to
1989. As the risk of diseases
caused by asbestos came to be
understood, concern about
lexposure was largely focused
lon workers in mining and
manufacturing asbestos, or in
high exposure jobs such as
pipe insulators. Many workers
were exposed to asbestos
knowingly and unknowingly
from products and processes in
these and other high exposure
environments. Specifically, it
lis not uncommon for
individuals claiming past work
as a vehicle mechanic as their
jonly source of asbestos
exposure to have had occult
exposure to amphibole as
demonstrated by the presence
lof amphibole asbestos fibers in
their lung tissue (Butnor 2003;
Roggli 2002).The amphibole
fibers present must be due to -
exposures or work other than
imechanic work because
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D. in Erivironmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
[Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: These statements are
irrelevant, speculative, and unsupported
by any evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§
210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.)
Sustained:
Overruled: ZO
1313349.1
8
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
* Oakland, California 94607
+ www-kazanlaw.com
* 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913
Jack London Market
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
(GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
amphibole asbestos is not
intentionally used in vehicle
parts and products, virtually all
vehicle parts and products
Ihave contained only chrysotile
lasbestos; and no airborne
amphibole fibers have been.
found as a consequence of
vehicle mechanic work in the
U.S. involving products
containing chrysotile. Thus,
among these subjects claiming
that their only exposure to
asbestos was due to work as an
lauto mechanic, some had to
have had jobs or worked in
environments that resulted in
exposure to amphibole
asbestos that were
unrecognized, were not
recalled, or that for other
reasons were not
communicated during the
collection of occupational
history information, Mr.
Koepke had several
opportunities for substantial
lexposure to amphibole
asbestos.”
14. Deelaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 16:21-17:8 ({ 41):
“In Mr. Koepke's early career,
lhe was a sheet metal/pattern
maker. In 1960 he completed
his training in "apprenticeship
schlosser [German,
metalworker]," engineering
courses, and English language
course in Hamburg,
Germany.He apprenticed as a
sheet metal worker in
Germany at Metelmann (1957-
1960), fabricating cabinets,
duct work, and switchboards,
and was listed as a member of
the Union of Metalworkers of
Westem Germany until at least
June 1965. Mr. Koepke
performed welding work while
lworking with stainless steel.ae
[After he completed his
lapprenticeship in 1960. Mr.
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
[Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: These statements are
irrelevant, speculative, and unsupported
by any evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§
210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
Specifically, Dr. Robbins provides no
foundation that Mr. Koepke was actuaily
lexposed to asbestos while working as a
sheet metal worker, rather Dr. Robbins
relies on studies that sheet metal workers
lare generally exposed to asbestos during
their work to reach that conclusion.
Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded.
Sustained:
Overruled:
1313349.1
9
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
+ 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
(510) 302-1000
* Fax: (510) 835-4913 * www.kazanlaw.com
Jack London Market
Oo 2 TD BH HH BP YW YO
RP RM RN wR NN HY SE oo
BORE EER FS SCE UR BRE BH TS
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
Koepke went to Australia
(aboard the passenger vessel
Castle Felice). He worked as a
sheet metal worker the entire
time he lived in Australia
working in the Snowy
‘Mountains (8/60-1/61), and at
|Athertons (N,S.W.) Pty. Ltd.
Engineers (3/61-3/23/62) at
Harry Byrnes Pty. Ltd.
Engineers (until 8/62) in
Sydney. After moving to the
United States, Mr. Kopek
‘worked as a sheet metal
lworker or pattern maker for
[Modern Plating & Polishing
(1962-1963), Michel &
Pefeffer (1965), and Trayer
Engineering Corporation
(1965-1972).”
15. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 17:9-18 ( 42):
“Sheet metal workers ate
exposed to asbestos in
iconnection with their work,
either directly, by installing
asbestos-containing paper, or
indirectly from other workers
at the jobsite using asbestos-
containing materials,.such as
insulation or cement products
(Cooper 1975; Welch 1994). A
study of workers renovating
buildings with asbestos-
containing spray insulation
showed that sheet metal
‘workers had the’highest
exposures of the carpenter,
electrician, painter, and sheet
metal trades (Paik 1983). The
authors suggest that the sheet
metal workers have the highest
exposure because they
disturbed the spray insulation
when they replace ventilation
systems. A survey of 1,330
U.S. sheet metal workers
found that 64% had installed
insulation , 81% had, removed
insulation, 53% had, repaired
insulation and 43% had mixed
asbestos cement (Selikoff
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: These statements are
irrelevant. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405,
800, 801, 802, 803.] Specifically, Dr.
Robbins provides no foundation that Mr.
‘Koepke was actually exposed to asbestos
while working as a sheet metal worker,
rather Dr. Robbins relies on studies that
sheet metal workers are generally exposed
to asbestos during their work to reach that
conclusion. Therefore, these statements
are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded.
Sustained:
1313349.1
10
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJ
\Overruled:_~"Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
* www.kazanlaw.com,
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913
Ce YN AW FF BY
Rm oN NN NN NN —
PRR PRRBBRB FSeRRRTBDEBHRETS
loccupation “sheet metal
worker” has a high risk for
Lmesothelioma. In addition,
sheet metal workers have a
high risk for respiratory
abnormalities associated with
asbestos. In a 1975 study of 55
sheet metal companies in
California, Cooper found that
63% of workers in residential
construction were exposed to
asbestos on the job, and a
significantly elevated SMR for
respiratory system cancer was
found for the cohort (Cooper
1975). Ongoing studies
consistently find parenchyrnal
and pleural abnormalities,
including mesothelioma cases,
lamong a large cohort of sheet
metal workers (Michaels 1988;
Welch 1994; Welch 2007;
Zoloth 1985).”
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
- |qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
MATERIAL OBJECTED IGROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING
LO:
1991).” :
16. Declaration of Coreen A. Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
Robbins at — (1 43): “The experience to offer opinions on
Sustained:
Overruled:
17. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 18:8-9 (§ 44): “Mr.
Koepke's medical records
describe heavy exposure to
asbestos while working in the
sheet metal trade.
(Hearsay: Dr. Robbins is relying on
“medical” records indicating that Mr.
Koepke was exposed to asbestos during
his sheet metal work. This is inadmissible}
hearsay and speculative. [Evidence §§
803, 1200.]
Sustained:
Overruled:
18. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 18:10-12 (4 45):
“OPINION: It is likely that
Mr. Koepke was significantly
exposed to elevated levels of
airborne asbestos fibers,
including to amphibole types,
during his apprenticeship and
employment as a sheet metal
lworker between 1957 and
1972.”
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: Dr. Robbins’ opinion is based
upon impermissible speculation and
conjecture, unsupported by any
evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§ 210,
403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
Specifically, Dr. Robbins provides no
foundation that Mr. Koepke was actually
exposed to asbestos while working as a
sheet metal worker, rather Dr. Robbins
relies on studies that sheet metal workers
are generally exposed to asbestos during
their work to reach that conclusion.
Sustained:
Overruled: v
19. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 18:18-19:2 (§ 47):
“Environmental. According to
1313349.1
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
Sustained: SY
Overruled:
his deposition, Mr. Koepke __|
[Koepke had environmental exposures to
i
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
* 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com
Jack London Market
Oo Oe YN DH PB BN
NY NM BY YM YD KY YN Nm meee
oN AA F&F BH FF SB we WY HH BF WwW HY =
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
lwas born and lived at
Marthastrauss, Hamburg until
the age of fourteen; This
address also is near the
asbestos factories identified in
a study of residential
mesothelioma cases in
Hamburg (Bohlig 1970).
(Hamburg was a harbor town.
‘with important ship-building
industry and a number of
asbestos-processing
enterprises, The incidence
rates of mesothelioma among
the general population of the
town of Hamburg was 0.056%
in the ten year period ending in
1969, but was reported to be
0.96% in the neighborhood
Inear the most important plant
(Bohlig 1970).Patients who
lived in the vicinity of this
plant before WWII reported a
"severe, visible snowfall-like
air pollution was emitted from
this factory, which blew dust-
laden air into the atmosphere
(Bohlig 1973).”
lasbestos while living in Hamburg.
‘Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
20. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at (48): “WWII
Bombing. Mr. Koepke was in
Hamburg during the first air
raid bombing in 1944 [sic],but
left Hamburg after the second
bombing. His family home
survived both bombings but
buildings in close proximity to
lwhere he lived were bombed
out completely; "fell into
rubble and burned. “Following
the War, there was “fairly
significant construction"
[attorney phrasing} in an effort
ito rebuild the city of Hamburg.
According to Mr. Koepke,
Hamburg was bombed 80%
during the war and most of it
lwas rebuilt very fast.”
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
Koepke had environmental exposures to
asbestos while living in Hamburg.
Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
Sustained:
21. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 19:9-18 (4 49):
“Elevated Incidence of
4 el iseases in
1313349.1
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
Ke ironmental exnosures to
Sustained:
Overruled:
12
TAI TA DETT TAMIICTDING Tr oR MST
|\Overruled:Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
+ 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
(510) 302-1000 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com
Jack London Market
2 em NY DA HW BF WN
Woy wy wR RNR NH oe
BNRRRPRBRBHEBSEeETDAEBEER SES
MATERIAL OBJECTED
TO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
Hamburg: In the ten years
from 1958 to 1968 251 people
died of mesothelioma in
Hamburg ,173 men and, 78
women (Hain 1974;
‘Knappmann 1972). This
number represented
approximately 0.32% of all
autopsies during the time
period (Knappmann 1972). Of
150 cases of mesothelioma
;with respect to which a full
social and occupational history
lwas obtained, 20 patients lived
in the neighborhood of an
asbestos factory, and did not
Ihave any direct occupational
sure to asbestos (Hain
1974). In addition, an.
increased incidence of
asbestosis and asbestos-related
pleural plaques was
documented in Hamburg as a
result of environmental
exposures (Dalquen 1970). Of
92 cases of pleural plaques
studied in 1970, 21 persons
developed pleural plaques
apparently due to
environmental exposure to
asbestos alone (Dalquen
1970).”
asbestos while living in Hamburg.
Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
22. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 19:24-20:6 (4 50):
“Elevated airborne asbestos
fiber concentrations have been
reported in industrial areas
(CA ARB 1986; LeMoine
1981). Average airborne fiber
concentrations near
environmental sources are
gencrally higher compared to
areas with no environmental
source, but average values are
lower than occupational
exposures in industries with
established risk of asbestos-
related disease. Although
exposure concentrations are
generally iower than
joccupational levels, the
is
1313349.1
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
[Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
HRelevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
Koepke had environmental exposures to
asbestos while living in Hamburg.
Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
(Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
[Robbins is not qualified to offer any.
Sustained:
Overruled:
WZ
13 :
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Cotporation
* 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607
+ Fax: (510) 835-4913 * warw.kazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000
Jack London Mazket
Oo em YN DA HW FF WN
NY NN NY NY YN N Yee ee ee Se oe RB
oa A A BF BN FSF SF BD we IAD HM RB WN & OS
IGROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
days/week). Epidemiological
studies including case-control
studies show significantly
increased risk of mesothelioma
associated with living near
facilities that manufacture or
use asbestos products that
include amphibole asbestos
(Berry 1997; Bohli g 1973;
Dalquen 1 970; Kurum afani
2008; Magnani 2001 ;
(Marinaccio 2007; Maule 2007;
INewhouse 1965). Thus, Mr.
Koepke likely experienced
exposure to elevated (above
urban background) airborne
asbestos fibers, including
amphibole fibers, due to the
close proximity of his
residences and employment to
industrial sources of asbestos
(Bohlig 1973).”
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
MATERIAL OBJECTED RULING
TO:
constant (24 hours/day, 7 opinions as an epidemiologist nor
23. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 20:7-11 (4 51):
“OPINION: From 1939 to
approximately 1960, Mr.
Koepke likely experienced
exposure to clevated airborne
asbestos fibers, including
amphibole fibers, due to the
proximity of his residences
land employment to industrial
sources of asbestos emissions.
He is part of a population with
reported high rates of
mesothelioma and is at
increased risk due to the years
he lived in close proximity to
industrial asbestos processing
plants.”
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
[Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
Koepke had environmental exposures to
asbestos while living in Hamburg.
Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Sustained:
Overruled:
>
24. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 20:13-19 (4 52):
OPINION: Mr. Koepke may
have had the potential for
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
[Koepke had environmental exposures to
Sustained:
(Overruled:
Z
"home contact" or take-home
1313349.1
bi while living i
14
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
* 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
© wowwekazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913
Jack London Market
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
lexposure to asbestos from the
time he was born due to his
father's work at the railroad.
There is not enough
information about Mr.
(Koepke's father to rule out -
additional take-home exposure
from other work he may have
been engaged in during a time
period Mr. Koepke lived in
Hamburg (1939-1960) when
the use of asbestos was
‘widespread and exposures
lwere common and extremely
high in industrial settings,
compared to current standards,
since exposure controls and
concern about exposure was
minimal or absent.”
Therefore, these statements are irrelevant,
speculative, and unfounded, [Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.]
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
25. Declaration of Coreen A.
Robbins at 20:21-22:20 (4 53):
“Based on the case-specific
information I have been
provided in this case, as well
as based on my education,
training, and experience in
‘industrial hygiene, it is my
professional opinion that there
is no information indicating
that Mr. Koepke was
substantially exposed to
elevated airborne levels of
asbestos from products
supplied by Rox:
a. Mr. Koepke was not
employed as a vehicle
Imechanic; therefore, his
exposure, if any, while
engaged in occasional vehicle
repairs or as a bystander would
be lower than the average
lexposures of those employed
las vehicle mechanics, in
addition, Mr. Koepke had no
confirmed contact with brakes,
clutches, or gaskets supplied
lby Rox Automotive and Rox
supplied a small percentage of
ithe total brakes, clutches, and
gaskets used at Mr. Koepke's
shops, Mr. Koepke's contact, if
any. with Ri akes, ¢
Speculation, Lacks foundation,
[Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and
Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr.
[Koepke had environmental exposures to
asbestos while living in Hamburg or
exposures to asbestos while working as a
sheet metal worker. Therefore, these
statements are irrelevant, speculative, and
founded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405,
800, 801, 802, 803.]
Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or
experience to offer opinions on
epidemiology or medical causation. Dr.
Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in
Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety
land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Science. While she may be
qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr.
Robbins is not qualified to offer any
opinions as an epidemiologist nor
qualified to provide medical causation
opinions. (Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.]
Therefore, this Court should disregard
these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins.
Sustained:
Overruled: v
1313349.1
15
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
‘A Professional Law Corporation
‘Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, Califomia 94607
»* www.kazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000 * Fas: (510) 835-4913
=
So wm Nn DH MH & WY N
Nh NN RN Rm ee
prep RR BBE SF Ge AAR aRBH ES
MATERIAL OBJECTED
TO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
and gaskets was minimal and
possibly absent altogether. In
the absence of contact with
Rox brakes, clutches, and
gaskets, Mr. Koepke could
have had no exposure to
airborne asbestos to these
parts.
lb. Chrysotile asbestos fiber
exposure, if any, is negligibly
ow for full-time career vehicle
mechanics; and epidemiologic
studies show that as an
loccupational group they are
mot at increased risk of
developing mesothelioma.
Therefore, it is not
scientifically supported that
Mr. Koepke’s exposure to
chrysotile fibers, if any, due to
the occasional personal vehicle
mechanic work he performed
and/or handling of vehicle
parts, or bystander exposure,
whether or not it included Rox
[Automotive parts or products,
could be a substantial factor in
the development of his
mesothelioma. In addition, Mr.
Koepke had no confirmed
contact with Rox Automotive
pads, thus exposure to
asbestos-containing Rox
Automotive parts is precluded
and would not be a substantial
factor in the development of
‘Mr. Koepke’s mesothelioma.
c. For an office manager in a
oom separate from the service
area and for an occasional
visitor to the garage area of
IMr. Koepke's shops, the
opportunity for any airborne
asbestos exposure is even less
than the insignificant exposure
levels experienced by vehicle
mechanics. It is scientifically
lunsupported that chrysotile
asbestos dust could pose a
mesothelioma risk under the
conditions experienced by Mr.
en uch
1313349,1
16
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
‘A Professional Law Corporation
55 Harrison Steect, Suite 400 * Cakland, California 94607
+ Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com
{510} 302-1000
Jack London Market *
oOo ON DR HW BF YN
wNM NR NN N KN DN KD Se Be ee es Be Re Re Se
ol fA A KR YN SF SG OD we ND HH F&F YW YH SK GS
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
increased risk exists for a
vehicle mechanic. Thus, it is
evident that Mr. Koepke's
occasional potential bystander
exposure, if any, from Rox
[Automotive products or parts,
lwould not be a substantial
factor in the development of
his mesothelioma.
id. It is likely that Mr. Koepke
lwas significantly exposed to
elevated levels of airborne
asbestos fibers, including to
amphibole types, during his
apprenticeship and
employment as a sheet metal
worker between 1957 and
1972.
le, From 1939 to approximately
1960, Mr. Koepke likely
experienced exposure to
elevated airborne asbestos
fibers, including amphibole
fibers, due to the proximity of
his residences and employment
to industrial sources of
asbestos emissions. He is part
lof a population with high rates
lof mesothelioma and is at
increased risk due to the years
he lived in close proximity to
industrial asbestos processing
plants.
if. Mr. Koepke may have had
the potential for take-home
lexposure to asbestos from the
time he was born due to his
father's work at the railroad.
There is not enough
information about Mr. -
Koepke's father to rule out
additional take-home exposure
from other work be may have
been engaged in during a time
period Mr. Koepke lived in
Hamburg (1939-1960) when
the use of, asbestos was
‘widespread and exposures
lwere common and extremely
high in industrial settings,
compared to current standards.
13133491
17
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
‘A Professional Law Corporation
+ 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607
Jack London Market
* Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000
—
°
MATERIAL OBJECTED
LO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
since exposure controls and
concern about exposure was
minimal or absent.”
26. Declaration of Samuel D.
Spivack, at 10:10-16 (J 31):
“Mr. Koepke was not an
automotive mechanic. Mr.
Koepke never worked as a
mechanic and never installed
or removed brakes or clutches
lat any of his shops. He hired
Imechanics for his shops
because he was not qualified to
}work on cars himself. He
never arced or used a grinder
on brakes, drilled brake linings
or clutches, removed brake |
Jinings from metal shoes,
riveted new linings onto brake
shoes, cut brake linings or
clutch, sanded clutch facings,
or cut gaskets for any
application on a vehicle. Mr.
‘Koepke never performed any
automotive work on any of his
own or any of his family's or
friend's vehicles.”
‘Speculation, Lacks foundation, and
[Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: This
paragraph concludes that Mr. Koepke had
Ino confirmed contact with brakes, but Mr.
[Koepke testified he sometimes sanded
brake linings at the Shell Station and
Harold’s Automotive. [Evid. Code §§
210, 403, 405, 800, 802, 803; Koepke
Depo, Ex. 2 to Rivera Decl. at 628:19-
630:23, 1199:14-1202:18, 1263:1-
1264:11, 1260:16-1262:17] Therefore,
this opinion lacks foundation.
Sustained: A
Overruled:__“"
27. Declaration of Samuel D.
Spivack, at 10:17- 11:5 (J
32): “Mr. Koepke also claims
bystander exposure to brake
linings as a result of his
mechanics using compressed
air on brake jobs, and as a
result of cleaning up the shops
at the end of the day. As Dr.
Robbins notes, potential
exposure to airborne asbestos,
if any, for bystanders in
mechanic shops or garages are
Imuch lower compared to that
for mechanics (Donovan
2011). Since Mr. Koepke was
ot a mechanic the airborne
fiber concentrations to which
Ihe might have been exposed
during his years operating his
businesses would have been
miniscule, if any, and clearly
insignificant compared to the
(potential exposures for
Dr. Spivack lacks the qualifications or
experience to opine about automobile
imechanics exposures to asbestos. [Evid.
Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Inhis
declaration, Dr. Spivack provides no
foundation that he is qualified to offer
lexpert opinions on epidemiology and
industrial hygiene. Therefore, this Court
should disregard these opinions.
Sustained: /
Overruled:
1313349.)
18
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, Califomia 94607
* www.kazanlaw.com
(510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913
eo Oe YN DN WH FF WN
NY N DY NH NY NO DR Nm ee a ea ea ek
oN KD HN Se Ye YP KF SG OD Oe I DR DH BF WY NH &
MATERIAL OBJECTED
‘TO:
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:
RULING
mechanics from their work on
Imany vehicles and/or as
[bystanders to other mechanic's
lwork.”
28. Declaration of Samuel D.
Spivack, at 11:6-17 (4 33):
“As Dr. Robbins notes,
exposures of vehicle
mechanics and brake
technicians to airborne
asbestos fibers have been
thoroughly investigated over
the past 30 years and
lexposures have been shown to ~
be low. In its asbestos
Irulemakings, OSHA.
consistently found that then-
existing asbestos exposures in
vehicle repair were already
below each new permissible
exposure limit that was being
Iproposed. data contained in
reviews of industrial hygiene
sampling data and modern
simulation studies clearly
show that asbestos exposures
in brake repair operations have
consistently been below
contemporaneous exposure
standards (Blake 2003; OSHA.
1983; OSHA 1986; OSHA
1994; Paustenbach 2003;
Richter 2009; WHO 1998).
Exposures experienced by
mechanics during typical tasks
such as brake, clutch, gasket,
land exhaust work are very low
iwith exposure to commercial
chrysotile-type asbestos only,
‘with overall eight-hour, time-
weighted average (8-hr TWA)
exposures averaging 0.04 f/cc
for brake work (Paustenbach.
2003), 0.0016 f/ce for clutch
lwork (Cohen 2008), and 0.018
f/ee for gasket and exhaust
work (Paustenbach 2006).”
Dr. Spivack lacks the qualifications or
experience to opine about automobile
Imechanics exposures to asbestos. [Evid.
Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] In his
declaration, Dr. Spivack provides no
foundation that he is qualified to offer
lexpert opinions on epidemiology and
industrial hygiene. Therefore, this Court
should disregard these opinions.
Sustained:
Overruled:
|
29. Declaration of Samuel D.
Spivack, at 11:18-28 (4 34):
Dr. Spivack lacks the qualifications or
éxperience to opine about automobile
Sustained:
“The epidemiologic studies mechanics exposures to asbestos. [Evjid.
that have been published inthe [Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] In his Overruled:
[peer-reviewed scientific declaration. Dr. Spivack provides no
1313349.1
19
[P
Preview
IOI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-12-2014 9:31 am Case Number: CGC-13-276217 Filing Date: Jun-11-2014 9:23 Filed by: Juke Box: 001 Image: 04515485 ORDER HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al 001004515485 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 ° Oakland, California 94607 (S10) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www-kazanlaw.com Jack London Matket e Coe YN DO Hh B® ww WD yb Ne Ye NY YY MY N MY YDS = — e2 Yuga SEF FS Fe WAGDEBDOH AS Ted Pelletier, Esq. (C.S.B. # 172938) Julianna M. Rivera, Esq. (C.S.B. # 290955) JRivera@kazanlaw.com I KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD s any atte of Callfomia A Trofessional Law Corporation Jack London Market 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 YUN 11 2014 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 302-1000 CLERK OF THE COURT Facsimile: (510) 835-4913 BY. x Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- | Case No. CGC13276217 KOEPKE,, Assigned For All Purposes To: Plaintiffs, Hon. Teri L. Jackson, Dept. 503 vs. [PROPO }] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVID. TARY OBJECTIONS IN FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., s ORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BELL INDUSTRIES, Defendants. INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson Date: June 11, 2014 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 503 Action Filed: December 3, 2013 Trial Date: June 16, 2014 MATERIAL OBJECTED GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING TO: 1. Plaintiffs object to the Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or Declaration of Coreen A. experience to offer opinions on Sustained: ___ Robbins in its entirety. epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. ce Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Overruled: Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist. Dr. 1313349.1 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood. A Professional Law Corporation + $5 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Onldand, California 94607 (810) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com Jack London Market eo em NH HW KRW NY eet eo QD A HW BF WN SF SG i9 MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid, Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Yet Dr. Robbins does both in her declaration. Therefore, this Court should disregard any such opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. 2. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 5:4-12 (J 8): “Mr. ‘Koepke's testimony and court documents claim he had asbestos exposure from work with and around Rox Automotive products supplied by Bell Industries; however, Mr, Koepke and his attorneys are not trained in determining if where, when, or how much, asbestos exposure is likely to occur in any setting. Mr. Koepke's contact with Rox lproducts comprised a small percentage of the automotive products around which he lworked. Additionally, Mr. Koepke had numerous opportunities for exposure to airborne asbestos fibers, including amphibole types, during wartime childhood in Germany, during his residence in Hamburg until 1960, and during his early training and career as a sheet metal worker due to asbestos-containing materials present and handled in his work environment.” Speculation, Lacks foundation, and |Assumes Facts Not in Evidence: This paragraph is a mere conclusory statement that is unsupported by any evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 802, 803.] Specifically, Dr. Robbins provides no foundation that Mr. Koepke lwas actually exposed to asbestos while lworking as a sheet metal worker, rather Dr. Robbins relies on studies that sheet Imetal workers are generally exposed to asbestos during their work to reach that conclusion. Dr. Robbins also fails to lay lany foundation that Mr. Koepke was lexposed to asbestos during the time he lived in Germany. Sustained: Overruled:_|Y 3. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 10:27-11:27 (24): “OPINION: Mr. Koepke was not employed as a vehicle mechanic; therefore, his exposure, if any, while engaged in occasional vehicle repairs would more likely be lower than the average exposures of those employed as vehicle mechanics. In addition, Mr. Koepke had no confirmed contact with brakes, (clutches, or gaskets supplied Speculation, Lacks foundation, and Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: This paragraph concludes that Mr. Koepke had ino confirmed contact with brakes, but Mr. Koepke testified he sometimes sanded ‘brake linings at the Sheil Station and (Harold’s Automotive. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 802, 803; Koepke [Depo, Ex. 2 to Rivera Decl. at 628:19- 630:23, 1199:14-1202:18, 1263:1- 1264:11, 1260:16-1262:17] Therefore, this opinion lacks foundation. Sustained: Overruled: Zz 1313349.1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood ‘A Professional Law Corporation 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 °’ Oakland, California 94607 Jack London Market * www.kazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 » om YN DW RB WHY RoR YM YN NY NY De aa ent AW F&F YW YN &§ Se wow BR AH & WKH SK MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING iby Rox Automotive and Rox supplied a small percentage of the total brakes, clutches, and gaskets used at Mr. Koepke's shops. This contact, if any, ‘with Rox brakes, clutches, and gaskets was minimal and possibly absent altogether. In ithe absence of contact with Rox brakes, clutches, and gaskets, Mr. Koepke could not Inave had exposure to any airborne asbestos from these parts.” 4. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 11:8-10 (25): “Asbestos-related diseases in vehicle mechanics have been extensively studied and data in these studies show that lworkers with this occupation Ihave no increased risk of mesothelioma.” 5, Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 11:11-24 (J 26): Numerous epidemiologic studies, including cohort mortality, case control, and proportionate mortality studies Ihave addressed the risk of mesothelioma in vehicle mechanics and brake repairmen (Agudo 2000; Coggon 1995; Gustavsson 1990; Hansen 1989; Hodgson 1997; Jarvbolm 1988; McDonald 1980; Milham 2001; Olsen 1987; Rake 2009; Spirtas 1985; Teschke 1997; Teta 1983; Woitowitz 1994), For data in four of these studies, no risk ratios could be calculated because too few (0, 1, or 2) cases of mesothelioma lwere seen in vehicle mechanics or brake repairmen (Gustavsson 1990; Hansen. fs Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D, in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an-epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Sustained: Overruled: 1313349.1 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation Jack London Market ° 55 Harzison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 * wwwikazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 oe NA HW BF WY = we NON NY NY NN BD wee eis oa AA Fk Oo YN &§ SF oO we I DH BW HY BS So MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING 1989; Jarvholm 1988; Olsen. 1987). For data in all of the remaining studies, risk ratios lwere less than or equal to 1.0, indicating that there was no increase in the risk of mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics and brake repairmen. Coggon (Coggon 1995) commented: “Notable for an absence of significant risk are motor mechanics, ... about whom concerns have been raised because of the presence of” asbestos in brake linings. It seems that this exposure has Ino important effect on mortality from lmesothelioma...” 6. Declaration of Corecn A. Robbins at 11:25-12:6 (4 27): “Wong (2001) conducted a- meta-analysis based on six case-control studies and calculated a combined relative risk of 0.90 (Agudo 2000; McDonald 1980; Spirtas 1985; Teschke 1997; Teta 1983; Woitowitz 1994; Wong '2001).Goodman (2004) later conducted a meta-analysis of seven studies addressing the risk of mesothelioma in vehicle mechanics, Studies included five case-control studies considered by Wong plus two published after his meta-analysis (Goodman 2004; Hansen 2003; Hessel 2004). One of the two new studies (Hessel 2004) was a follow-up of a study Wong had used (Spirtas 1985). Goodman categorized the quality of studies as Tier I (better) or Tier II (acceptable) according to their methodological strengths or weaknesses, and found meta-relative risks of 0.92 (Tier T) and 0.82 (Tier ID). (Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental ‘Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any lopinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ -720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Overruled: 1313349.1 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJ Sustained:Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation * Oakland, California 94607 + -wwwkazanlaw.com + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 Jack London Market MATERIAL OBJECTED GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: [RULING TO: These meta-analyses data support the conclusion that ‘vehicle mechanics do not have an increased risk of mesothelioma.” 7. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 12:7-11 (J 28): “In addition, Laden (Laden 2004) reviewed the literature from 1966 to 2003 for studies on occupations and Imesothelioma, They found and reviewed six studies of cancer that at least mentioned mesothelioma and vehicle mechanics, and another thirteen studies that were focused on mesothelioma and also mentioned vehicle mechanics. Not one of these nineteen studies found an association between work as a vehicle mechanic and Imesothelioma.” Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Sustained: ‘Overruled: 8. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 12:12-22 (§ 29): Studies published subsequent to the meta-analyses discussed above confirm the lack of significantly increased risk of mesothelioma or death from mesothelioma for vehicle mechanics. Proportionate mortality was significantly reduced (PMR 48, 95% CI 37- 62) for British "motor mechanics" for the 1980 to 2000 period (McElvenny 2005). Mesothelioma risk was not significantly elevated in a British case-control study for the occupational group that included motor mechanics (odds ratio 1.1 95% CI 0.5- 2:2)(Rake 2009).In this study, the occupational group that included motor mechanics was categorized a priori at "low risk" of asbestos exposure and disease based on the Standard [Occupational Code. details of Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental (Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbias. ‘Sustained: Overruled: v 1313349.1 5 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation reet, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 * www.kazanlaw.com + Fax: (510) 835-4913, g £ d 8 g 8 = Jack London Market MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: | IGROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING the job or location and an average PMR of less than 100 (Peto 2009; Rake 2009). A recent study of French industries and occupations at risk for mesothelioma found Ino association for risk of this disease for the industry of "motor vehicle repair" or the occupation of "motor vehicle mechanic" (Rolland 2010).” 9. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 12:23-27- (§ 30): “Exposures to airborne asbestos fibers have been shown to be very low for common vehicle mechanic tasks involving potentially asbestos-containing parts. These data indicate that mechanic work with or near potentially asbestos-containing vehicle parts would not increase the risk for the development of mesothelioma. This is consistent with and supportive of the epidemiologic findings of no increased risk of asbestos- related disease for vehicle mechanics.” Dr.|Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any lopinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation lopinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803. Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Sustained: Overruled: 10. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 12:28-13:10 (4 31): “OPINION: Chrysotile asbestos fiber exposure, if any, is negligibly low for full-time career vehicle mechanics; and epidemiologic studies show that as an occupational group they are not at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. Mr. Koepke was not a full- time career vehicle mechanic. Therefore, his exposure, if any, hwould be lower than the laverage exposures of those employed as full-time vehicle imechanics. Accordingly, it is not scientifically supported that Mr. Koepke's exposure to lchrysotile fibers, if anv. due to [Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on. epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. [Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Heaith, and a Ph.D. in Environmental [Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Sustained: vw Overruled: 1313349.1 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Coxporation * 35 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 (510) 302-1000 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 » www-karanlaw.com Jack London Market oN TN oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING the occasional personal vehicle mechanic work he performed and/or handling of vehicle parts, whether or not it included Rox Automotive parts or products, could be a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma. In addition, Mr. Koepke had no confirmed contact with Rox Automotive parts, thus in the absence of thus contact, exposure io lasbestos-containing Rox Automotive parts is precluded and would not be a substantial factor in the development of Mr. Koepke's mesothelioma. 11. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 14:8-15 (4 35): “As described previously, potential asbestos exposure has been found to be low for vehicle mechanics, and epidemiologic studies show that these workers are not at increased risk of mesothelioma. Potential exposure to airborne asbestos, if any, for bystanders in mechanic shops or garages are much lower compared to that for mechanics (Donovan 2011).Since Mr. Koepke was mot a mechanic the airborne fiber concentrations to which lhe might have been exposed during his years operating his businesses would have been Iminiscule, if any, and clearly insignificant compared to the potential exposures for ‘mechanics from their work on Imany vehicles and/or as bystanders to other mechanic's lwork.” Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins Sustained: Overruled: v 12. Declaration of Corcen A. Robbins at 15:22-16:1 (4 39): “OPINION: For an office manager in a room separate from the service area and for Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or lexperience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety an_occasional visitor to the 1313349.1 and Health, and a Ph.D, in Environmental Sustained: en 7 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Sattetley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation + 53 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607 (510) 302-4000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 * www.kazanlaw.com Jack London Market oo ny A UV Fk W NY mw MY NY NR NY NY N NY DY Bee Re Ee Ee Se OS RE oOo mau A mW Fs Bo NHN SF SO we I DA FF wWwN & S from Rox Automotive products or parts, would not be a substantial factor in the development of his Imesothelioma.” MATERIAL OBJECTED GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING TO: garage arca of Mr. Koepke’s Health Science. While she may be shops, the opportunity for any qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. airborne asbestos exposure is Robbins is not qualified to offer any even less than the insignificant _ opinions as an epidemiologist nor exposure levels experienced by _ [qualified to provide medical causation vehicle mechanics. It is opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] scientifically unsupported that _ | Therefore, this Court should disregard chrysotile asbestos dust could _|these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. pose a mesothelioma risk under the conditions lexperienced by Mr. Koepke lwhen no such increased risk exists for a vehicle mechanic. Thus, it is evident that Mr. Koepke's occasional potential ‘bystander exposure, if any, 13. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 16:3-19 (¥f 40): Asbestos was used in a wide variety of products and processes from the 1940s to 1989. As the risk of diseases caused by asbestos came to be understood, concern about lexposure was largely focused lon workers in mining and manufacturing asbestos, or in high exposure jobs such as pipe insulators. Many workers were exposed to asbestos knowingly and unknowingly from products and processes in these and other high exposure environments. Specifically, it lis not uncommon for individuals claiming past work as a vehicle mechanic as their jonly source of asbestos exposure to have had occult exposure to amphibole as demonstrated by the presence lof amphibole asbestos fibers in their lung tissue (Butnor 2003; Roggli 2002).The amphibole fibers present must be due to - exposures or work other than imechanic work because Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D. in Erivironmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803. Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Speculation, Lacks foundation, [Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: These statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unsupported by any evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.) Sustained: Overruled: ZO 1313349.1 8 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation * Oakland, California 94607 + www-kazanlaw.com * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 Jack London Market MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: (GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING amphibole asbestos is not intentionally used in vehicle parts and products, virtually all vehicle parts and products Ihave contained only chrysotile lasbestos; and no airborne amphibole fibers have been. found as a consequence of vehicle mechanic work in the U.S. involving products containing chrysotile. Thus, among these subjects claiming that their only exposure to asbestos was due to work as an lauto mechanic, some had to have had jobs or worked in environments that resulted in exposure to amphibole asbestos that were unrecognized, were not recalled, or that for other reasons were not communicated during the collection of occupational history information, Mr. Koepke had several opportunities for substantial lexposure to amphibole asbestos.” 14. Deelaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 16:21-17:8 ({ 41): “In Mr. Koepke's early career, lhe was a sheet metal/pattern maker. In 1960 he completed his training in "apprenticeship schlosser [German, metalworker]," engineering courses, and English language course in Hamburg, Germany.He apprenticed as a sheet metal worker in Germany at Metelmann (1957- 1960), fabricating cabinets, duct work, and switchboards, and was listed as a member of the Union of Metalworkers of Westem Germany until at least June 1965. Mr. Koepke performed welding work while lworking with stainless steel.ae [After he completed his lapprenticeship in 1960. Mr. Speculation, Lacks foundation, [Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: These statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unsupported by any evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Specifically, Dr. Robbins provides no foundation that Mr. Koepke was actuaily lexposed to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker, rather Dr. Robbins relies on studies that sheet metal workers lare generally exposed to asbestos during their work to reach that conclusion. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. Sustained: Overruled: 1313349.1 9 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 (510) 302-1000 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 * www.kazanlaw.com Jack London Market Oo 2 TD BH HH BP YW YO RP RM RN wR NN HY SE oo BORE EER FS SCE UR BRE BH TS MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING Koepke went to Australia (aboard the passenger vessel Castle Felice). He worked as a sheet metal worker the entire time he lived in Australia working in the Snowy ‘Mountains (8/60-1/61), and at |Athertons (N,S.W.) Pty. Ltd. Engineers (3/61-3/23/62) at Harry Byrnes Pty. Ltd. Engineers (until 8/62) in Sydney. After moving to the United States, Mr. Kopek ‘worked as a sheet metal lworker or pattern maker for [Modern Plating & Polishing (1962-1963), Michel & Pefeffer (1965), and Trayer Engineering Corporation (1965-1972).” 15. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 17:9-18 ( 42): “Sheet metal workers ate exposed to asbestos in iconnection with their work, either directly, by installing asbestos-containing paper, or indirectly from other workers at the jobsite using asbestos- containing materials,.such as insulation or cement products (Cooper 1975; Welch 1994). A study of workers renovating buildings with asbestos- containing spray insulation showed that sheet metal ‘workers had the’highest exposures of the carpenter, electrician, painter, and sheet metal trades (Paik 1983). The authors suggest that the sheet metal workers have the highest exposure because they disturbed the spray insulation when they replace ventilation systems. A survey of 1,330 U.S. sheet metal workers found that 64% had installed insulation , 81% had, removed insulation, 53% had, repaired insulation and 43% had mixed asbestos cement (Selikoff Speculation, Lacks foundation, Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: These statements are irrelevant. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Specifically, Dr. Robbins provides no foundation that Mr. ‘Koepke was actually exposed to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker, rather Dr. Robbins relies on studies that sheet metal workers are generally exposed to asbestos during their work to reach that conclusion. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. Sustained: 1313349.1 10 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJ \Overruled:_~"Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation Jack London Market * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 * www.kazanlaw.com, (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 Ce YN AW FF BY Rm oN NN NN NN — PRR PRRBBRB FSeRRRTBDEBHRETS loccupation “sheet metal worker” has a high risk for Lmesothelioma. In addition, sheet metal workers have a high risk for respiratory abnormalities associated with asbestos. In a 1975 study of 55 sheet metal companies in California, Cooper found that 63% of workers in residential construction were exposed to asbestos on the job, and a significantly elevated SMR for respiratory system cancer was found for the cohort (Cooper 1975). Ongoing studies consistently find parenchyrnal and pleural abnormalities, including mesothelioma cases, lamong a large cohort of sheet metal workers (Michaels 1988; Welch 1994; Welch 2007; Zoloth 1985).” epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be - |qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803. Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. MATERIAL OBJECTED IGROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING LO: 1991).” : 16. Declaration of Coreen A. Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or Robbins at — (1 43): “The experience to offer opinions on Sustained: Overruled: 17. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 18:8-9 (§ 44): “Mr. Koepke's medical records describe heavy exposure to asbestos while working in the sheet metal trade. (Hearsay: Dr. Robbins is relying on “medical” records indicating that Mr. Koepke was exposed to asbestos during his sheet metal work. This is inadmissible} hearsay and speculative. [Evidence §§ 803, 1200.] Sustained: Overruled: 18. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 18:10-12 (4 45): “OPINION: It is likely that Mr. Koepke was significantly exposed to elevated levels of airborne asbestos fibers, including to amphibole types, during his apprenticeship and employment as a sheet metal lworker between 1957 and 1972.” Speculation, Lacks foundation, Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: Dr. Robbins’ opinion is based upon impermissible speculation and conjecture, unsupported by any evidentiary facts. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Specifically, Dr. Robbins provides no foundation that Mr. Koepke was actually exposed to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker, rather Dr. Robbins relies on studies that sheet metal workers are generally exposed to asbestos during their work to reach that conclusion. Sustained: Overruled: v 19. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 18:18-19:2 (§ 47): “Environmental. According to 1313349.1 Speculation, Lacks foundation, Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. Sustained: SY Overruled: his deposition, Mr. Koepke __| [Koepke had environmental exposures to i [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com Jack London Market Oo Oe YN DH PB BN NY NM BY YM YD KY YN Nm meee oN AA F&F BH FF SB we WY HH BF WwW HY = MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING lwas born and lived at Marthastrauss, Hamburg until the age of fourteen; This address also is near the asbestos factories identified in a study of residential mesothelioma cases in Hamburg (Bohlig 1970). (Hamburg was a harbor town. ‘with important ship-building industry and a number of asbestos-processing enterprises, The incidence rates of mesothelioma among the general population of the town of Hamburg was 0.056% in the ten year period ending in 1969, but was reported to be 0.96% in the neighborhood Inear the most important plant (Bohlig 1970).Patients who lived in the vicinity of this plant before WWII reported a "severe, visible snowfall-like air pollution was emitted from this factory, which blew dust- laden air into the atmosphere (Bohlig 1973).” lasbestos while living in Hamburg. ‘Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] 20. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at (48): “WWII Bombing. Mr. Koepke was in Hamburg during the first air raid bombing in 1944 [sic],but left Hamburg after the second bombing. His family home survived both bombings but buildings in close proximity to lwhere he lived were bombed out completely; "fell into rubble and burned. “Following the War, there was “fairly significant construction" [attorney phrasing} in an effort ito rebuild the city of Hamburg. According to Mr. Koepke, Hamburg was bombed 80% during the war and most of it lwas rebuilt very fast.” Speculation, Lacks foundation, Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. Koepke had environmental exposures to asbestos while living in Hamburg. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Sustained: 21. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 19:9-18 (4 49): “Elevated Incidence of 4 el iseases in 1313349.1 Speculation, Lacks foundation, Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. Ke ironmental exnosures to Sustained: Overruled: 12 TAI TA DETT TAMIICTDING Tr oR MST |\Overruled:Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 (510) 302-1000 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com Jack London Market 2 em NY DA HW BF WN Woy wy wR RNR NH oe BNRRRPRBRBHEBSEeETDAEBEER SES MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING Hamburg: In the ten years from 1958 to 1968 251 people died of mesothelioma in Hamburg ,173 men and, 78 women (Hain 1974; ‘Knappmann 1972). This number represented approximately 0.32% of all autopsies during the time period (Knappmann 1972). Of 150 cases of mesothelioma ;with respect to which a full social and occupational history lwas obtained, 20 patients lived in the neighborhood of an asbestos factory, and did not Ihave any direct occupational sure to asbestos (Hain 1974). In addition, an. increased incidence of asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural plaques was documented in Hamburg as a result of environmental exposures (Dalquen 1970). Of 92 cases of pleural plaques studied in 1970, 21 persons developed pleural plaques apparently due to environmental exposure to asbestos alone (Dalquen 1970).” asbestos while living in Hamburg. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] 22. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 19:24-20:6 (4 50): “Elevated airborne asbestos fiber concentrations have been reported in industrial areas (CA ARB 1986; LeMoine 1981). Average airborne fiber concentrations near environmental sources are gencrally higher compared to areas with no environmental source, but average values are lower than occupational exposures in industries with established risk of asbestos- related disease. Although exposure concentrations are generally iower than joccupational levels, the is 1313349.1 Speculation, Lacks foundation, [Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and HRelevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. Koepke had environmental exposures to asbestos while living in Hamburg. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] (Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety and Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. [Robbins is not qualified to offer any. Sustained: Overruled: WZ 13 : [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Cotporation * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 * warw.kazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 Jack London Mazket Oo em YN DA HW FF WN NY NN NY NY YN N Yee ee ee Se oe RB oa A A BF BN FSF SF BD we IAD HM RB WN & OS IGROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: days/week). Epidemiological studies including case-control studies show significantly increased risk of mesothelioma associated with living near facilities that manufacture or use asbestos products that include amphibole asbestos (Berry 1997; Bohli g 1973; Dalquen 1 970; Kurum afani 2008; Magnani 2001 ; (Marinaccio 2007; Maule 2007; INewhouse 1965). Thus, Mr. Koepke likely experienced exposure to elevated (above urban background) airborne asbestos fibers, including amphibole fibers, due to the close proximity of his residences and employment to industrial sources of asbestos (Bohlig 1973).” qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803. Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. MATERIAL OBJECTED RULING TO: constant (24 hours/day, 7 opinions as an epidemiologist nor 23. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 20:7-11 (4 51): “OPINION: From 1939 to approximately 1960, Mr. Koepke likely experienced exposure to clevated airborne asbestos fibers, including amphibole fibers, due to the proximity of his residences land employment to industrial sources of asbestos emissions. He is part of a population with reported high rates of mesothelioma and is at increased risk due to the years he lived in close proximity to industrial asbestos processing plants.” Speculation, Lacks foundation, [Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. Koepke had environmental exposures to asbestos while living in Hamburg. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Sustained: Overruled: > 24. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 20:13-19 (4 52): OPINION: Mr. Koepke may have had the potential for Speculation, Lacks foundation, Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. [Koepke had environmental exposures to Sustained: (Overruled: Z "home contact" or take-home 1313349.1 bi while living i 14 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 © wowwekazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 Jack London Market MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING lexposure to asbestos from the time he was born due to his father's work at the railroad. There is not enough information about Mr. (Koepke's father to rule out - additional take-home exposure from other work he may have been engaged in during a time period Mr. Koepke lived in Hamburg (1939-1960) when the use of asbestos was ‘widespread and exposures lwere common and extremely high in industrial settings, compared to current standards, since exposure controls and concern about exposure was minimal or absent.” Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and unfounded, [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. 25. Declaration of Coreen A. Robbins at 20:21-22:20 (4 53): “Based on the case-specific information I have been provided in this case, as well as based on my education, training, and experience in ‘industrial hygiene, it is my professional opinion that there is no information indicating that Mr. Koepke was substantially exposed to elevated airborne levels of asbestos from products supplied by Rox: a. Mr. Koepke was not employed as a vehicle Imechanic; therefore, his exposure, if any, while engaged in occasional vehicle repairs or as a bystander would be lower than the average lexposures of those employed las vehicle mechanics, in addition, Mr. Koepke had no confirmed contact with brakes, clutches, or gaskets supplied lby Rox Automotive and Rox supplied a small percentage of ithe total brakes, clutches, and gaskets used at Mr. Koepke's shops, Mr. Koepke's contact, if any. with Ri akes, ¢ Speculation, Lacks foundation, [Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, and Relevancy: There is no evidence that Mr. [Koepke had environmental exposures to asbestos while living in Hamburg or exposures to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker. Therefore, these statements are irrelevant, speculative, and founded. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 801, 802, 803.] Dr. Robbins lacks the qualifications or experience to offer opinions on epidemiology or medical causation. Dr. Robbins has a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Masters in Occupational Safety land Health, and a Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science. While she may be qualified as an industrial hygienist, Dr. Robbins is not qualified to offer any opinions as an epidemiologist nor qualified to provide medical causation opinions. (Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions offered by Dr. Robbins. Sustained: Overruled: v 1313349.1 15 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood ‘A Professional Law Corporation ‘Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, Califomia 94607 »* www.kazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 * Fas: (510) 835-4913 = So wm Nn DH MH & WY N Nh NN RN Rm ee prep RR BBE SF Ge AAR aRBH ES MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING and gaskets was minimal and possibly absent altogether. In the absence of contact with Rox brakes, clutches, and gaskets, Mr. Koepke could have had no exposure to airborne asbestos to these parts. lb. Chrysotile asbestos fiber exposure, if any, is negligibly ow for full-time career vehicle mechanics; and epidemiologic studies show that as an loccupational group they are mot at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. Therefore, it is not scientifically supported that Mr. Koepke’s exposure to chrysotile fibers, if any, due to the occasional personal vehicle mechanic work he performed and/or handling of vehicle parts, or bystander exposure, whether or not it included Rox [Automotive parts or products, could be a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma. In addition, Mr. Koepke had no confirmed contact with Rox Automotive pads, thus exposure to asbestos-containing Rox Automotive parts is precluded and would not be a substantial factor in the development of ‘Mr. Koepke’s mesothelioma. c. For an office manager in a oom separate from the service area and for an occasional visitor to the garage area of IMr. Koepke's shops, the opportunity for any airborne asbestos exposure is even less than the insignificant exposure levels experienced by vehicle mechanics. It is scientifically lunsupported that chrysotile asbestos dust could pose a mesothelioma risk under the conditions experienced by Mr. en uch 1313349,1 16 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSJKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood ‘A Professional Law Corporation 55 Harrison Steect, Suite 400 * Cakland, California 94607 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com {510} 302-1000 Jack London Market * oOo ON DR HW BF YN wNM NR NN N KN DN KD Se Be ee es Be Re Re Se ol fA A KR YN SF SG OD we ND HH F&F YW YH SK GS MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING increased risk exists for a vehicle mechanic. Thus, it is evident that Mr. Koepke's occasional potential bystander exposure, if any, from Rox [Automotive products or parts, lwould not be a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma. id. It is likely that Mr. Koepke lwas significantly exposed to elevated levels of airborne asbestos fibers, including to amphibole types, during his apprenticeship and employment as a sheet metal worker between 1957 and 1972. le, From 1939 to approximately 1960, Mr. Koepke likely experienced exposure to elevated airborne asbestos fibers, including amphibole fibers, due to the proximity of his residences and employment to industrial sources of asbestos emissions. He is part lof a population with high rates lof mesothelioma and is at increased risk due to the years he lived in close proximity to industrial asbestos processing plants. if. Mr. Koepke may have had the potential for take-home lexposure to asbestos from the time he was born due to his father's work at the railroad. There is not enough information about Mr. - Koepke's father to rule out additional take-home exposure from other work be may have been engaged in during a time period Mr. Koepke lived in Hamburg (1939-1960) when the use of, asbestos was ‘widespread and exposures lwere common and extremely high in industrial settings, compared to current standards. 13133491 17 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood ‘A Professional Law Corporation + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, California 94607 Jack London Market * Fax: (510) 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 — ° MATERIAL OBJECTED LO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING since exposure controls and concern about exposure was minimal or absent.” 26. Declaration of Samuel D. Spivack, at 10:10-16 (J 31): “Mr. Koepke was not an automotive mechanic. Mr. Koepke never worked as a mechanic and never installed or removed brakes or clutches lat any of his shops. He hired Imechanics for his shops because he was not qualified to }work on cars himself. He never arced or used a grinder on brakes, drilled brake linings or clutches, removed brake | Jinings from metal shoes, riveted new linings onto brake shoes, cut brake linings or clutch, sanded clutch facings, or cut gaskets for any application on a vehicle. Mr. ‘Koepke never performed any automotive work on any of his own or any of his family's or friend's vehicles.” ‘Speculation, Lacks foundation, and [Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: This paragraph concludes that Mr. Koepke had Ino confirmed contact with brakes, but Mr. [Koepke testified he sometimes sanded brake linings at the Shell Station and Harold’s Automotive. [Evid. Code §§ 210, 403, 405, 800, 802, 803; Koepke Depo, Ex. 2 to Rivera Decl. at 628:19- 630:23, 1199:14-1202:18, 1263:1- 1264:11, 1260:16-1262:17] Therefore, this opinion lacks foundation. Sustained: A Overruled:__“" 27. Declaration of Samuel D. Spivack, at 10:17- 11:5 (J 32): “Mr. Koepke also claims bystander exposure to brake linings as a result of his mechanics using compressed air on brake jobs, and as a result of cleaning up the shops at the end of the day. As Dr. Robbins notes, potential exposure to airborne asbestos, if any, for bystanders in mechanic shops or garages are Imuch lower compared to that for mechanics (Donovan 2011). Since Mr. Koepke was ot a mechanic the airborne fiber concentrations to which Ihe might have been exposed during his years operating his businesses would have been miniscule, if any, and clearly insignificant compared to the (potential exposures for Dr. Spivack lacks the qualifications or experience to opine about automobile imechanics exposures to asbestos. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] Inhis declaration, Dr. Spivack provides no foundation that he is qualified to offer lexpert opinions on epidemiology and industrial hygiene. Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions. Sustained: / Overruled: 1313349.) 18 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MSIKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, Califomia 94607 * www.kazanlaw.com (510) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 eo Oe YN DN WH FF WN NY N DY NH NY NO DR Nm ee a ea ea ek oN KD HN Se Ye YP KF SG OD Oe I DR DH BF WY NH & MATERIAL OBJECTED ‘TO: GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION: RULING mechanics from their work on Imany vehicles and/or as [bystanders to other mechanic's lwork.” 28. Declaration of Samuel D. Spivack, at 11:6-17 (4 33): “As Dr. Robbins notes, exposures of vehicle mechanics and brake technicians to airborne asbestos fibers have been thoroughly investigated over the past 30 years and lexposures have been shown to ~ be low. In its asbestos Irulemakings, OSHA. consistently found that then- existing asbestos exposures in vehicle repair were already below each new permissible exposure limit that was being Iproposed. data contained in reviews of industrial hygiene sampling data and modern simulation studies clearly show that asbestos exposures in brake repair operations have consistently been below contemporaneous exposure standards (Blake 2003; OSHA. 1983; OSHA 1986; OSHA 1994; Paustenbach 2003; Richter 2009; WHO 1998). Exposures experienced by mechanics during typical tasks such as brake, clutch, gasket, land exhaust work are very low iwith exposure to commercial chrysotile-type asbestos only, ‘with overall eight-hour, time- weighted average (8-hr TWA) exposures averaging 0.04 f/cc for brake work (Paustenbach. 2003), 0.0016 f/ce for clutch lwork (Cohen 2008), and 0.018 f/ee for gasket and exhaust work (Paustenbach 2006).” Dr. Spivack lacks the qualifications or experience to opine about automobile Imechanics exposures to asbestos. [Evid. Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] In his declaration, Dr. Spivack provides no foundation that he is qualified to offer lexpert opinions on epidemiology and industrial hygiene. Therefore, this Court should disregard these opinions. Sustained: Overruled: | 29. Declaration of Samuel D. Spivack, at 11:18-28 (4 34): Dr. Spivack lacks the qualifications or éxperience to opine about automobile Sustained: “The epidemiologic studies mechanics exposures to asbestos. [Evjid. that have been published inthe [Code §§ 720, 801, 803.] In his Overruled: [peer-reviewed scientific declaration. Dr. Spivack provides no 1313349.1 19 [P