Trial Materials: HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                13
4

28

CARROLL, BURDICK &

MeDonouge LLP
svmasies ar baw
SAN Feancisee

Garrett Sanderson III, Bar No. 131026

sanderson@cbmlaw.com

Peter H. congeon No, 220850 ELECTRONICALLY

peruz@cbmlaw.com FILED
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP Superior Court of California,
Attorneys at Law Suite 400 County of San Francisco
44 Montgomery Street, Suite
San Francisco, California 94104 MAY 01 2014
Telephone: 415.989.5900 BY: ALISON AGBAY
Facsimile: 415.989.0932 Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- Case No. CGC-13-276217
KOEPKE,
DECLARATION OF GARRETT SANDERSON HI
Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF VWGOA’s MOTION TO
REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR LIst
ve OF EXPERT WITNESSES

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Date: May 21,2014
TIME: — 9:00 A.M.

Defendants. Dept.: 503

Action Filed: December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 16, 2014

I, Garrett Sanderson III, declare as follows:

1 I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge and, if called as a
witness, could and would testify competently to the matters stated here.

2, Tam a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and am a partner of
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, attorneys for defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

MEET AND CONFER

3. Plaintiffs disclosed their expert witnesses on April 28, 2014. After reviewing their
expert list, 1 sent an initial meet and confer letter to plaintiffs’ counsel during the afternoon on
Tuesday, April 29, 2014. I raised some concerns about their expert disclosure in the letter and

requested a telephone conference. Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy of my

CBM-PRODUCTS'SF62525 1-1

DECL, OF GARRETT SANDERSON HI 1SO VWGOA’S MOTION
TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS tO REDUCE THEIR LIST of EXPERT WITNESSESSCO ew ID

28

CARROLL, BURDICK &

‘McDonoucH LLP
Arroesens a1 Lae
SAN FRANCISCO

letter offering to meet and confer with plaintiffs’ counsel by telephone concerning the substantive
issues.

4, Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct copy of a short string of emails
dated April 29, 2014, between plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Mr. Satterley, and me. In my email
response, | offered to meet and confer with him or any of the multiple colleagues of his that he
carbon copied on his April 29 email, either anytime on April 30 or during the early morning on
May 1, 2014, on the substantive issues in the underlying motion, e.g., the number of experts
plaintiffs have disclosed on the same subject. I received a letter from an attorney for plaintiffs on
April 30. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached to this declaration as Exhibit C. 1
promptly replied to that letter on April 30, and made two proposals concerning the substantive
issues. Exhibit D to this declaration is a true and correct copy of my April 30 letter.

5. Later on April 30, 2014, I spoke by telephone for about 23 minutes with Ryan

Harris of the Kazan firm (plaintiffs’ counsel). We really did not make any progress on the

substantive issues, He raised the issue of more than 70 experts Ford has listed in this case. My
comment to that was I am not aware of any experts Ford has listed against us and that he could file
a motion against Ford secking a reduction of its expert list. Also during our telephone
conversation , Mr. Harris said Dr. Allan Smith is the plaintiffs’ only “pure” epidemiologist, even
though several of plaintiffs’ listed experts are described as persons who “may” offer testimony on
epidemiology. I asked Mr. Harris in response if he would confirm that Dr. Smith will be called at
trial and will testify on epidemiology. He said no, he would not state that and further asserted that

he did not have to because it is his work product. In an effort to reach a negotiated and consensual

resolution of these issues, I then offered to have a phone conference between his office and ours
on Friday, May 2, during which both sides would identify the specific experts from their
respective lists that they will actually present at trial and identify their specific areas, so that we
could then schedule their respective depositions. Mr. Harris refused to agree to do so. At that
point, J also stated it would be appropriate for the Court to immediately mandate such a

conference among all parties, particularly if plaintiffs are concerned about the number of experts

CBM-PRODUCTS\SF62525 1-1 2.

DECL. OF GARRETT SANDERSON IITTSO VWGOA’s MOTION
TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS To REDUCE THEIR LIST of EXPERT WITNESSES—- oD OC CID mH BF WwW BD mH

nN

we

28

CarRowe, Burpick &

McDorouGH LLP
Areousive n3 Law
SAN FRANCISCO

disclosed by Ford. I subsequently received a second letter from Mr. Harris, a true and correct
copy of which is attached to this declaration as Exhibit E.

6. Exhibit F hereto is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ designation of expert
witnesses, Based on my review of this disclosure, plaintiffs have designated multiple experts to
testify on the same subjects and disciplines, e.g.. epidemiology. In addition, two of the experts
listed by plaintiffs are deceased, so it is not possible for plaintiffs to even retain them, or for either
of them to give a deposition in this case, or for plaintiffs to represent that they can give a
meaningful deposition in this case as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.410 and
2034.260(c){(4), respectively. Plaintiffs listed two deceased experts, and Mr. Harris told me during
our telephone conference on April 30 that they would not withdraw them. Also during the
telephone conversation I had with Mr. Harris on April 30, he also raised the Australian experts
VWGoA has designated. | told him VWGoA has designated several experts from Australia based
on the fact that Mr. Koepke lived and worked in Australia, and the difficulties of conducting
discovery there pursuant to the Hague Convention given the time constraints imposed by
plaintiffs’ preferential trial date, among other factors. VWGoA also is sharing some of these
experts with some of the other defendants.

7. Good cause exists for granting VWGoA’s motion to require plaintiffs to reduce
their expert witness list, strike the two deceased experts, and provide proper descriptions of what
each remaining expert is “expected” to testify about at trial. Facts showing good cause include the
following: (a) plaintiffs have listed 16 retained experts: (b) plaintiffs’ description of experts fails to
comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260 in several respects (including the failure to
indicate what most of them are “expected” to testify about at trial and multiple experts are listed to
address the same subjects such that VWGoA cannot make a meaningful determination about
which experts to depose and on what, and plaintiffs’ counsel refused VWGoA’s offer to hold a

telephone conference on May 2 for that purpose); (c) the hourly rates for most of those experts

range from $350 to $800 per hour for deposition testimony, which the noticing party normally

must pay; (d) a fee representing the estimated amount of time to depose the expert must be

tendered with the deposition notice; (e) assuming five hours for a deposition of each of plaintiffs’

CBM-PRODUCTS'SF625251-1 3-

DECL. OF GARRETT SANDERSON [Il ISO VWGOA’S MOTION
TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS To REDUCE THEIR LIST oF EXPERT WITNESSES28

‘CARROLL, BURDICK &
MeDonoucn LLP
ArteRNeys aba
SAN FRANCISCO.

retained experts, VWGoA would have to tender checks amounting to at least $37,375 to depose

thirteen of them; (f) several of plaintiffs’ listed experts are located in other states, including New
York and Maryland, and VWGoA would incur substantial travel-related expenses if required to
depose each of them near where they reside; (g) there currently are only 26 business days before
the expert discovery cut-off, which makes it virtually impossible to depose all of them by then,
given their locations throughout the country; and (h) 10 calendar days’ notice is required to notice
an expert’s deposition, which means there are effectively just about 19 business days available to

depose plaintiffs’ experts.

8. At the ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear this motion, which
occurred on May I, 2014, plaintiffs’ counsel, Ryan Harris, told me plaintiffs would agree to
withdraw the two deceased persons who were disclosed as experts. That reduces their disclosed
retained experts to fourteen but does not address the other shortcomings in their expert disclosure.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May L 2014, at San

Francisco, California.

“

“

Ye
gf Garrett Sanderson IT

CBM-PRODUCTSISI625251-1 4.
DECI. OF GARRETT SANDERSON HIISO VWGOA’S MOTION
TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR LIST Of EXPERT WITNESSESEXHIBIT ACARROLL, BURDICK
& McDONOUGH LLP

44 Montgomery Street

Suite 400
San Francisco, CA
94104-4606 April 29, 2014

. Garrett Sanderson Ill
415.989. aoe. © Direct Dial: 415.743.2578
415,999. ax gsanderson@cbmiaw.cam

vwww.cbmniaw.com

Via File & ServeXpress

Joseph Satterley, Esq.

KAZAN McCLAIN SATTERLEY LYONS,
GREENWOOD & OBERMAN

Jack London Market

55 Harrison Street, Suite 400

Oakland, CA 94607

Re: Koepke v. Ford, et al.
Ex Parte Application for OST on May 1, 2014

Dear Mr. Satterley:

This letter serves as notice that we will be appearing in Department 503 of the
San Francisco Superior Court, which is located at 400 McAllister Street, San
Francisco, CA 94102, on Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 11 am, to present an ex parte
application for an order shortening time to hear the following motion unless we can
resolve this matter by meet and confer by day's end on Wednesday:

1. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250, including but not
limited to subpart (b)(6), to require plaintiffs to reduce their list of expert witnesses on
grounds that multiple experts disciosed by plaintiffs are duplicative and cumulative
and deposing all of them prior to the June 16, 2014, trial date would be unduly
burdensome and oppressive. In addition, such a list fails to comply with Code of Civil
Procedure section 2034.260(b)(1) and 2034.410 (e.g., two listed witnesses are
deceased and cannot be deposed in this case); and in the alternative to continue the
June 16 trial date so that defendants can meaningfully depose each of them and,
under those circumstances, requiring each of them to appear for deposition in San
Francisco at plaintiffs' expense, including that plaintiffs pay the hourly fee for any
expert whose testimony is duplicative/cumulative of another designated expert.

Regarding your list of experts, | would welcome an opportunity to meet and
confer with you or one of your colleagues by telephone by the end of the day
tomorrow (1 understand you are in New York to complete Mr. Cameron's deposition on

Belling © Béblingen * HongKong =® LosAngeles * Sacramento © San Francisco

CBM-PRODUCTSISF625196-1Joseph Satierley, Esq.
Re: Koepke v. Ford, et al.
April 29, 2014

Page 2

April 30). in reviewing your disclosure of experts, it appears that you have designated
four experts on epidemiology (Drs. Arthur Frank, Allan Smith, Arnold Brody, and David
Egilman); at least two experts on pathology (Drs. Eugene Mark and Ronald Dodson);
and at least two experts on state of the art (Drs. Barry Horn and Barry Castleman). It
also appears that you have designated more than one expert on basic industrial
hygiene issues.

in addition, you have designated two deceased persons as experts - Wilhelm
Hueper and Douglas Fowler - neither of whom can be deposed or cross-examined in
this case and, for that reason alone, should be withdrawn. A deceased person fails to
meet the code requirement of being capable of sitting for a deposition in this case to
set forth the opinions he intends to render at trial and the basis for them.

As stated above, | am prepared to meaningfully meet and confer with you or
one of your colleagues tomorrow by telephone regarding plaintiffs’ list of experts, in an
effort to determine if we can avoid a motion and one heard on shortened time. Let me
know a time that would work best for you or your colleagues after about 8 am PST on
Wednesday, April 30.

Sincerely,
wr
CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH Lip
Zone
4 —)
x be

-

Garrett Sanderson Ill

GSiss
cc: All Counsel of Record Via File & ServeXpress

CBM-PRODUCTSISF625138-1Page | of 3

Your transaction has been successfully submitted to Fite & ServeXpress. Your transaction information appears below. To
print this information for your records, click anywhere on the transaction information, then click the browser Print button.

For a formatted copy of this information, obtain a transaction report.
To perform anether transaction, click Begin a New Transaction,
To exit Filing & Service, click Return to My File & ServeXpress.

TIP: Receive notifications of new Filing & Service activity that match your search criteria. Click on the Alerts tab.

File & ServeXpress Transaction Receipt

File & ServeXpress Transaction ID: 55370034

Submitted by: Sharon Swint, Carrol! Burdick & McDonough LLP-San Francisco
Authorized by: Garrett Sanderson, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP-San Francisco
Authorize and file on: Apr 29 2014 3:44PM POT

Court: CA Superior Court County of San Francisco-Civil
Division/Courtroom: N/A

Case Class: Civil

Case Type: Personal Injury-Asbestos

Case Number: 276217

Case Name Koepke, Harold et al vs Ford Motor Co et al (Kazan McClain)
Transaction Option: Serve Only - Public

Billing Reference: 040218

Documents List
1 Document(s)

Attached Document, 2 Pages Document ID: 58988066 PDF Format | Original Format
Document Type: Access: Statutory Fee: Linked:
Correspondence Public $0.00

Document title:
Sanderson letter to Satterley re OST on May 1, 2014

Expand Ail
(]_Sending Parties (1)
Pa i!
Party twee Attorney Firm Attorney Type
Volkswagen Group of Defendant Sanderson, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP-San = Attorney in
America Inc . enda Garrett Francisco Charge
i=] Recipients (47)
[=] _Service List (47)
Delivery Party i Attorney
Option Party Type Attorney Firm Type Method
; American Honda Motor Counsel, Asbestos Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Attorney in  E-
Service Go Ine Defendant (gas.sF Smith LLP-San Francisco Charge Service
Service American Honda Motor Defendant Tugade, Edward Brydon Hugo & Parker-San Attorney in E- |
Ce Inc Francisco Charge Service
, American Honda Motor Kestenbaum, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Attorney in  E-
Service Go Ine Defendant avid Smith LLP-San Francisco Charge Service
. American Honda Moter 4 Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Attorney in E-
Service o Ine Defendant Foley, Patrick) crvith LLP-Los Angeles Charge Service
Attorney in E-
Service Beli Industries Inc Defendant Park, Ann I Pond North LLP Charge Service
Service BELNORTEL Corp Defendant Young, Dennis M Foley & Mansfield PLLP- Attorney in E>

https://secure.fileandservexpress.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSub... 4/29/2014Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Service

Borg Warner Corp Defendant
BorgWarner Morse TEC Defendant
Continentai

Automotive Systems Defendant
Ine

Cooper Industries LLC Defendant

Designated Defense

Counsel Defendant
Don L Morris Inc Defendant
Don Lb Morris Inc Defendant

FMC Technologies Inc Defendant
Ford Motor Co Defendant
Foreland Parts Inc Defendant

Genuine Parts Co Inc Defendant

HM Royal Inc Defendant
H M Royal inc Defendant
Hertz Corp Defendant
Hertz Corp. Defendant
international Inc Defendant
Honeywell Defendant

International Inc

Karidis-Koepke, Nancy Plaintiff
Karidis-Koepke, Nancy Plaintiff

Karidis-Koepke, Nancy Plaintiff

Kelsey Hayes Co Defendant
Koepke, Harold Plaintiff
Koepke, Harold Plaintiff
Koepke, Harold Plaintiff
Lear Siegler Diversified Defendant

Holdings Corp

Lear Siegler Diversified
Holdings Corp
Metropolitan Life Defendant
Insurance Co
Morton Internationa!
Inc

National Automotive
Parts Association

Defendant

Defendant
Defendant

Parker Hannifin Corp Defendant

Chew, Kimberly
Gil'espie, Jeffrey S

Bergstrom, Emily
D

Maul, Donna L

Counsel, Asbestos
BaB

WFBM, Asbestos
Counsel

Rothberg,
Stephanie

Hartley, Edward &
Petty, Ross

Pond, Frank D
Pond, Frank D
Renstrom, Peter K
Marston, John M

Ranucci, John W

LAMPASONA,
MARIA

Ongaro, David
Raines, Susan
Bosch, Carole
Harris, Ryan
Satterley, Joseph
Oberg, Lisa
Bosch, Carole
Harris, Ryan
Satterley, Joseph

Cox, John C

Kendrick,
Elizabeth A

Petrovsky, Lisa
Kannett, Mark S
Pond, Frank D

Tavera, Leonard

Page 2 of 3

Oakland Charge

Attorney in

Burnham Brown-Oakland Charge

Burnham Brown-Oakiand Attorney

Becherer Kannett & Attorney in
Schweitzer-Emeryville Charge

Brydon Hugo & Parker-San Attorney in

Francisco Charge
a Attorney in
Berry & Berry-Oakland Charge
Walsworth Franklin Bevins Attorney in
& McCall-Orange Charge
Walsworth Franklin Bevins
& McCall-Orange Attorney
. Attorney in
Hassard Bonnington LLP Charge
Nixon Peabody LLP - Main Attorney in
Account Charge
Attorney in
Pond Nerth LLP Charge
Pond North LLP Attorney In
Charge
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom Attorney in
LLP Charge
Jackson Jenkins Renstrom Attorney in
LLP Charge
Lombardi Loper & Conant Attomey 'n
harce
ttorney in
Lombardi Loper & Conant Charge
Thompson & Knight LLP- Attorney in
San Francisco Charge
Thompson & Knight LLP- Attorney in
San Francisco Charge
Kazan McClain Satteriey & Attorney in
Greenwood Charge
Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood Attomey
Kazan McClain Satteriey & Attorney in
Greenwood Charge
McKenna Long & Aldridge Attorney in
LLP-San Francisco Charge
Kazan McClain Satterley & Attorney in
Greenwood Charge
Kazan McCiain Satteriey &
Greenwood Attorney
Kazan McClain Satterley & Attorney in
Greenwood Charge
Keesai Young & Logan-San Attorney in
Francisco Charge
Keesal Young & Logan- Attorney in
Long Beach Charge
Steptoe & Johnson LLP- Attorney in
Los Angeles Charge
Becherer Kannett & Attorney in
Schweitzer-Emeryville Charge
Pond North LLP Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Semper Law Group Charce

https://secure. fileandservexpress.comy/ W ebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSub...

Service
E-
Service
E
Service

E-
Service

E-
Service
E
Service
&
Service
E
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E.
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
EB
Service
E
Service
EB
Service
E-
Service
E
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
&
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
Ee
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service

4/29/2014Page 3 of 3

Service Pheumo Abex LLC Defendant Maul, Donna L_—_prydon Hugo & Perker-Sen cheney in vee
Service Shell Oil Co Defendant Petty, Ross Nixon Peabody Lup - Main enomey rE nce
Service Shell Oi Co Defendant Brian, Aaron M Nixon Peabody LLP-LA cnomey in Eo vice
cece Sty OWED AE ose MER Aes Near Fann Bes Romeyin
cence SEGRE MEN AND orn Ser, MANE IN SEMS woypey
Service Thyssenkrupp Budd Co Defendant Kapian, S Mitchell porson & Rees-San ChareeY in conics
Service hang Or SAS etendant Counsel, BHP —_pr¥on Hugo & Perker-San thomas” 8 rvice
Service pniversity Distributors Defendant RUBE, Asbestos a inecoL Orcs Bevins chorea” in SSwiee
Service Haiversity Distributors perendant Steere mineehonege Bevins Attorney Ewice
Service yolkswegen Group Of pefendant Marks, Chris Sedgwick LLP-Seattle Attorney Sonyice
Service W Berry Hurley Corp Defendant Morthole, Kar! R — Morthole, Karl R chawe in Somos
i=] Additional Recipients (0)
Gf] _Case Parties
Begin a New Transaction | L Return to My File & ServeXpress | Perint | L Transaction Report

File & Serve.’

About File & ServeXpress | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Customer Support - 1-888-529-7587

“5 Copyright © 2014 File & ServeXpress Holdings, LLC. Alf rights reserved.

https://secure.fileandservexpress.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSub...

4/29/2014EXHIBIT BSanderson, Garrett

From: Sanderson, Garrett

Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 7:51 PM

To: Joseph D. Satterley

Ce: Ryan Harris; Carole Bosch; CFinberg@herzfeid-rubin.com; Andrea Huston; Denise A.
Abrams; Catherine Boggs

Subject: Re: Koepke v. Ford et al

Can you have a phone conference Thursday am, say sometime between 7 and 8:30 am PST? Or after tomorrow's
deposition - you are 3 hours ahead. We can conference in any of your colleagues whom you have cc'd. As | believe you
must know, Thursday is the last day this week for ex Partes and Judge Jackson is leaving town for the NBA playoffs. You
could stipulate to having the motion heard on shortened time. Alternatively, happy to speak with Ryan, Carole, Denise,
Andrea, Catherine or Ted of your office anytime tomorrow or early Thursday morning.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 29, 2014, at 7:37 PM, "Joseph D. Satterley"  wrote:

>

> Garrett,

> | saw your letter late in the day about experts and an ex parte hearing set for Thursday.

> As you know, | am in NY to depose your PMQ witness. | can not meaningfully meet and confer with you tomorrow, but
I can on Thursday.

> Your letter is not correct and inconsistent with your own filing of expert witnesses. You list 4 or 5 experts to discuss
Mr. Koepke's non-exposure in AUS.

>

> Are you NOT going to run to the court quickly without a meet and confer and complain about Ford's listing of 74
experts? Defendants have listed 133 expert witnesses.

>

> Ryan will send a letter outlying our position. Cumulative evidence does not occur in discovery, but might occur during
trial. | dealt with these arguments from Ford in the past and there is no way a court can rule on cumulative evidence
until trial. You should examine the law before wasting the Court's time. You should withdraw your frivolous motion.
>

> | encourage you to meet and confer before filing motions with the court.

> Sincerely,

>

> Joe Satterley

> Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

> Oakland, CA

> 510-302-1000

>

> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)

> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any

> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If

> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply

> email and destroy all copies of the original message. This Email is

> covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.

> Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.

>

> To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to

> postmaster@kazanlaw.com

>> KAZAN, MCCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
> A Professional Law Corporation

> http://www.kazanlaw.com

>
>EXHIBIT CKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood*

A Professional Law Corporation

Steven Ka . . Of Counsel
David M. MoClain Jack London Market + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, CA 94607 Frances ©. Scheciboon
Joseph D. Satterley (510) 302-1000 + (510) 835-4913 * www.kazanlaw.com fed W. Pelletier
Gordon D. Greeawood

Philip A. Harley (1947-2009) Andsea }
Francis 2, Fernandes Teta Delos
Denise Abrams Jatt A Rivarsonte
Justin Bosh Matthew L, Thiel

April 30, 2014

Autumn A. Mesa
Mark A. Swanson
Joseph Nicholson
Ryan Harris
Julianna Rivera
Carole M, Bosch

Via Facsimile - 415.989.0932

Garrett Sanderson

Carroll Burdick & McDonough
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104

Re; Harold Koepke and Nancy Karidis-Koepke v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC13276217
Your Client: Volliswagen Group of America, Inc.

Dear Mr. Sanderson:

Iam writing in response to your letter of yesterday, addressed to Mr. Satterley, regarding
your intention to appear tomorrow to seek an order shortening time via ex parte application. As
Mr. Satterley expressed yesterday, we do not believe there has been an adequate meet and confer
on this issue, rendering your rush to the courthouse to calendar a motion premature.

Your letter suggests that plaintiffs have designated four experts on epidemiology and two
experts on pathology. This is a gross oversimplification. As you must know from your
experience in this litigation, no field of expertise is an island and there is inevitably some degree
of overlap between scientific disciplines. Drs, Brody, Frank, Smith, and Egilman are being
offered for very different purposes. California law explicitly allows multiple experts to testify on
an issue when their testimony wil! not be-identical, will have different focus, and will have
different explanations. Afonroy v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 164 Cal. App.4th 248, 266; People
v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 748.

Dr, Brody is first and foremost a specialist in molecular and cellular biology. We
anticipate that Dr. Frank will primarily testify about the history of scientific and medical
literature on asbestos, which inevitably includes epidemiological studies. Dr, Egilman’s broad
expertise encompasses epidemiology but, as plaintiffs’ expert declaration makes clear, he is
uniquely qualified among plaintiffs’ experts to testify on issues including but not limited to
historical state-of-the-art, knowledge of the plaintiffs’ current condition and the course of his
disease, and the history and adequacy of warnings practices. Dr. Smith is plaintiffs’ principleGarrett Sanderson
April 30, 2014
Page 2

epidemiology specialist and is the expert who will testify directly as to epidemiological issues.
While there is some minimal and inevitable overlap in the expertise these scientists bring to bear
on this case, the descriptions of their backgrounds and anticipated testimony set forth in
plaintiffs’ declaration demonstrates that there is nothing cumulative about their areas of opinions.

Your conflation of the expertise of Drs. Mark and Dodson is even more inapposite. Dr.
Dodson is primarily an electron microscopist. While he regularly reviews pathology materials in
conducting analysis of a case, he is not described in plaintiffs’ declaration as a pathologist. Dr.
Mark, on the other hand, is an eminently qualified pathologist with a background and an arca of
expertise very different from that of Dr. Dodson.

Plaintiffs have designated a certified industrial hygienist, Dr. Ellenbecker. While Dr.
Egilman’s expertise and opinions involve reliance on basic industrial principles and literature, he
is primarily a medical expert. As with Volkswagen’s artificial and oversimplified groupings of
plaintiffs’ experts discussed above, there is nothing cumulative about these very distinct experts.

With respect to Drs. Hueper and Fowler, who are both deceased, plaintiffs would of
course only offer testimony of these experts by prior deposition, ifat all, Because they cannot be
deposed in this case, their disclosure by-plaintiffs’ poses no additional burden to defendants.
Objections to any of plaintiffs’ page and line designations of these witnesses can be raised with
the trial judge and will be subject to future meet and confer efforts. Plaintiffs have designated
only 14 living retained experts, as compared to Volkswagen’s 12. This is not a material
difference in burden,

I would note that by your own method of analysis, Volkswagen’s own designation
contains several “duplicative/cumulative” experts. These include multiple experts in
Epidemiology (Teta and Attwood), Toxicology and Warnings (Paustenbach and Finley),
Industrial Hygiene (Attwood, Rogers, Bormann) fiber use and automotive state of the art
(Feingold, Langer), occupational health and safety specific to Australia (Attwood and Robinson),
and the dubious field of expertise which might be referred to as presence of asbestos abroad
(Maines, Attwood, Rogers, Robinson). There are multiple experts listed who are expected to
testify as to more general state of the art and about regulatory policy regarding asbestos. If
plaintiffs’ experts, discussed above, are duplicative, then so are these groups of experts.

Further, any burden imposed on Volkswagen by the number of plaintiffs’ experts (which
is in no way anomalous for an asbestos case) pales in comparison to the 133 experts designated
across defendants’ disclosures, many of which are entirely duplicative and do not have any
expertise to offer that is specific to any one defendant. Under C.C.P. § 2034.250(b)(5), plaintiffs
would be entirely justified in secking an order from the Court that defendants must agree on non-
duplicative experts to mitigate the burden inflicted on plaintiffs by, for example, having to take
multiple pathologist depositions offered by different defendants.Garrett Sanderson
April 30, 2014
Page 3

A striking 74 of these experts was designated by one defendant, Ford. Wil] Volkswagen
be seeking to pare back Ford’s list in the same way that it is seeking to limit plaintiffs’ — whose
list is less than a quarter the size? Answering this question in the negative would reflect
Volkswagen’s clear bad faith in moving to deprive plaintiffs of designated experts.

Volkswagen has set forth no good cause why deposition of the disclosed experts cannot
be completed under the current trial schedule. Nor has Volkswagen identified any good cause to
have a motion io strike any experts heard on shortened time. We urge you to engage in further
meet and confer prior to burdening the Court with motion practice on this issuc.

Very truly yours,

yan H;G@3~-AT: 14159890932 OK 4/4

7274 MEMORY TX

x * x COMMUNICATION RESULT REPORT ( APR. 30. 2014 12:59PM) x « x

TTT KAZAN, McCLAIN 510 635 4913

SMLTTED/STORED APR. 30, 2014 12:58PM
“MODE ° OPTION " ADORESS RESULT PAGE

FaccimrLe connection _
Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Coxpesstion

Jack London Marker + $5 Harrison Streat, Suite 400 « Oalland, CA 94607
(810) 302-1000 + (510) 635-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

April 30, 2014

Fax No: 415.989.0932

To: Garrett Sanderson
Carrol, Burdick & McDonough
FROM: Ryan Harris

KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
A Professional Law Corporation

RE: Harold Koepke and Nancy Karidis-Koepke v. Ford Motor Company, et al,
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC13276217
Your Client: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

MOESSAGE:

TRANSMITTING A TOTAL OF 4 PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE.
ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL RYAN FIARRIS AS SOGN AS POSSIBLIt AT (510) 302-1000,

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message eontains information from the lawfirm Kazan, MeClain, Sattarlig,
& Gresiwood, 4 Professional Law Corporation, which may be priviteged, confidenttal and exempt from disalosure
under applicable law. Ifyou have received this communication tn error, please notify us immediately at our phone
number set forth above, and we will ba happy to arrange for the return of this message via United Statas Postel
Services to us at no cost 19 you. Please do not disseminate, distribute or copy this conmunteation. THANK YOUEXHIBIT DCARROLL, BURDICK
& McDONOUGH LLP

44 Montgomery Street
Suite 490
San Francisco, CA

24104-4606 April 30, 2014
Garrett Sanderson ill
ae oes Sone rox Direct Dial: 415.743.2578
gsanderson@cbmiaw.com

www.cbmlaw.com

Via File & ServeXpress

Ryan Harris, Esq.

KAZAN McCLAIN SATTERLEY LYONS,
GREENWOOD & OBERMAN

Jack London Market

55 Harrison Street, Suite 400

Oakland, CA 94607

Re: Koepke v. Ford, et al.
Plaintiffs’ List of Experts

Dear Mr. Harris:

Thank you for your letter dated April 30, in response to mine of April 29
concerning plaintiffs’ list of duplicative experts. At the outset, let me make clear that
our objections to plaintiffs’ expert list is not related to the number of experts disclosed
by another defendant in this case in response to your claims against it. | am not
aware of a single expert Ford has listed to testify against VWGoA, so there is no
reason for us to seek any reduction in the number of experts disclosed by Ford.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6) authorizes the court to require
a party to reduce its list of experts. We are willing to entertain other avenues, but your
April 10 letter fails to offer any constructive proposals. For exampie, | would consider
a representation regarding the specific experts plaintiffs intend to call at trial on their
claims against VWGoA. Assuming that list reduces the number, is manageable and
the subjects do not overlap, that may lead to a resolution. Alternatively, | request an
agreement by plaintiffs to withdraw some of their experts so that there are not, as the
declaration of disclosure indicates, multiple experts who have been disclosed to testify
on the same subjects.

Plaintiffs obtained a trial preference order, and there is no justification for
requiring VWGoA to depose 16 retained experts, plus 15 non-retained medical
experts, with the few business days that remain before the expert discovery cut-off
and at what will amount to an extraordinary expense given their hourly rates and

Beijing © Bdblingen ® HongKong » LosAngeles = Sacramento «# San Francisco
CBM-PRODUCTSISF625200-Ryan Harris, Esq.

Re: Koepke v. Ford, et al.
April 30, 2014

Page 2

locations in various parts of the country (unless, of course, you agree to bring them all
to San Francisco at plaintiffs’ expense and pay their hourly expenses).

As for the deceased witnesses, they are improper and should be
withdrawn. Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.410 entitles us to depose each
designated expert witness, and we clearly cannot depose a deceased
person. Moreover, disclosing an expert requires an affirmative representation by
plaintiffs that he/she “will be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a
meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including any opinion
and its basis, that the expert is expected to give at trial.” You cannot make such a
representation regarding a deceased person, so naming two deceased persons
violates the requirements of section 2034.260(b)(4).

| renew my offer to speak by telephone with you or any of your colleagues
about this either today or tomorrow morning prior to 8:30 a.m. PST, so | can finalize
the ex parte application if we cannot work this out.

Sincerely,

CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP

Garrett Sanderson lil

GS:ss
cc: All Counsel of Record Via File & ServeXpress

CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625200-1Page 1 of 3

Your transaction has been successfully submitted to File & ServeXpress. Your transaction information appears below. To
print this information for your records, click anywhere on the transaction information, then click the browser Print button
For a formatted copy of this information, obtain a transaction report.

To perform another transaction, click Begin a New Transaction.

To exit Filing & Service, click Return to My File & ServeXpress.

TIP: Receive notifications of new Filing & Service activity that match your search criteria, Click on the Alerts tab.

File & ServeXpress Transaction Receipt

File & ServeXpress Transaction ID:
Submitted by:

Authorized by:

Authorize and file on:

Court:
Division/Courtroom:
Case Class:

Case Type:

Case Number:

Case Nam

Transaction Option:
Billing Reference:

Documents List
1 Document(s)
Attached Document, 2 Pages

Document ID: 58998585

55376192
Sharon Swint, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP-San Francisco
Garrett Sanderson, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP-San Francisco

Apr 30 2014 2:29PM PDT

CA Superior Court County of San Francisco-Civil

N/A

Civil

Personal Injury-Asbestos

276217

Koepke, Harold et al vs Ford Motor Co et al (Kazan McClain)

Serve Only - Public

PDF Format | Original Format

Document Type: Access: Statutory Fee: Linked:
Correspondence Public $0.00
Document title:
Sanderson letter to Ryan Harris
Expand All
[¢l_Sending Parties (1)
Pi Party Att Fi A T
arty Type torney irm ttorney Type
Volkswagen Group of Defendant Sanderson, Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP-San Attorney in
America Inc jerencal Garrett Francisco Charge
[=] Recipients (47)
(©) Service List (47
Delivery Party + Attorney
‘Option Party Type Attorney Firm Type Method
. American Honda Motor Counsel, Asbestos Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Attorney in E-
Service Co tne Defendant (aag-se Smith LLP-San Francisco Charge Service
- American Honda Motor Brydon Hugo & Parker-San Attorney in E-
Service Co Inc Defendant Tugade, Edward Francisco Charge Service
a American Honda Motor Kestenbaum, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Attorneyin  E-
Service Co Inc Defendant David Smith LLP-San Francisco Charge Service
American Honda Motor Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Attorney in  E-
Service Go ine Defendant Foley, Patricks — chaith Lip-Los Angeles Charge Service
. Attorney in E>
Service Bell Industries Inc Defendant Park, Ann I Pond North LLP Charge Service
Service BELNORTEL Corp Defendant Young, Dennis M Foley & Mansfield PLLP- Attorney in E+
4/30/2014

https://secure. fileandservexpress.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSub...Service

Service

Service

Service
Service
Service
"Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service

Service

Borg Warner Corp

BorgWarner Morse TEC
Ince

Continental
Automotive Systems
Inc

Cooper Industries LLC

Designated Defense
Counsel

Don t Morris Inc

Don L Morris Inc

FM C Technologies Inc
Ford Motor Co
Foreland Parts Inc
Genuine Parts Co Inc
H M Royal Inc

HM Royal Inc

Hertz Corp

Hertz Corp
Honeywell
International Inc
Honeywell
International Inc

Karidis-Koepke, Nancy
Karidis-Koepke, Nancy
Karidis-Koepke, Nancy
Kelsey Hayes Co
Koepke, Harald
Koepke, Haroid

Koepke, Harold

Lear Siegler Diversified
Hotdings Corp

Lear Siegler Diversified
Holdings Corp
Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co

Morton International
Inc

National Automotive
Parts Association

Parker Hannifin Corp

Defendant Chew, Kimberly

Oakland

Burnham Brown-Oakland

Defendant Gillespie, Jeffrey S Burnham Brown-Oakland

Defendant Bergstrom, Emity

Defendant Maul, Donna L

Counsel, Asbestos
B&B

WFBM, Asbestos
Counsel
Rothberg,
Stephanie

Defendant
Defendant
Defendant
Defendant Hartley, Edward E
Defendant Petty, Ross
Defendant Pond, Frank D
Defendant Pond, Frank D
Defendant Renstrom, Peter K
Defendant Marston, John M

Defendant Ranucci, John W

LAMPASONA,

Defendant MARIA

Defendant Ongaro, David
Defendant Haines, Susan
Plaintiff Bosch, Carole
Plaintiff Harris, Ryan
Plaintiff Satterley, Joseph
Defendant Oberg, Lisa
Plaintiff Bosch, Carole
Plaintiff Harris, Ryan
Plaintiff  Satterley, Joseph

Defendant Cox, John C

Kenarick,

Defendant Fi abeth A

Defendant Petrovsky, Lisa
Defendant Karnett, Mark S
Defendant Pond, Frank D

Defendant Tavera, Lecnard

Becherer Kannett &
Schweitzer-Emeryville

Brydon Hugo & Parker-San
Francisco

Berry & Berry-Oakiand

Walsworth Franklin Bevins
& McCall-Orange

Waisworth Franklin Bevins
& McCall-Orange

Hassard Bonnington LLP

Nixon Peabody LLP - Main
Account

Pond North LLP

Pond North LLP

Jackson Jenkins Renstrom
LLP

Jackson Jenkins Renstrom
LEP

Lombardi Loper & Conant

Lombardi iLoper & Conant

TrRompson & Knight LLP-
San Francisco

‘Thompson & Knight LiP-
San Francisco

Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood

Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood

Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood

McKenna Long & Aldridge
LLP-San Francisco

Kazan McClain Satteriey &
Greenwood

Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood

Kazan McCiain Satterley &
Greenwood

Keesal Young & Logan-San
Francisco

Keesal Young & Logan-
Long Beach

Steptoe & Johnson LLP-
Los Angeles.

Becherer Kannett &
Schweitzer-Emeryvilie

Pond North LLP

Semper Law Group

Page 2 of 3

Charge

Attorney in
Charge

Attorney

Attorney in
Charge

Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge

Attorney

Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge

Attorney

Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge

Attorney

Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge
Attorney in
Charge

Attorney in
Charge

hitps://secure. fileandservexpress.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSub...

Service
Ee
Service
E
Service
E
Service

E
Service
—
Service
EB
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
&
Service
E-
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E-
Service
Ee
Service
Ee
Service
E-
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E-
Service
EB
Service
E-
Service
E
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E
Service
E-
Service
EB
Service
E-
Service

4/30/2014Service Paeumo Abex LLC Defendant

Service Shell Olt Co Defendant

Service Sheil Oit Co Defendant
; Specialty Foreign Auto

Service Parts Inc Defendant
. Specialty Foreign Auto

Service Parts Inc Defendant

Service Thyssenkrupp Budd Co Defendant
. Toyota Motor Sales

Service USA Inc Defendant

Service pniversity Distributors: Defendant

Service palversity Distributors Defendant

Volkswagen Group of

Service ‘America Inc Defendant

Service W Berry Hurley Corp Defendant

{=]_Additional Recipients (0)

i] _Case Parties

Maul, Donna L
Petty, Ross

Brian, Aaron M

WFBM, Asbestos
Counsel
Rothberg,
Stephanie

Kaplan, S Mitchell

Counsei, BHP

WFBM, Asbestos
Counsel

Rothberg,
Stephanie

Marks, Chris

Morthole, Karl R

Page 3 of 3

Brydon Hugo & Parker-San Attorney in
Francisco Charge

Nixon Peabody LLP - Main Attorney in

Account Charge
; Attorney in
Nixon Peabody LLP-LA Charge

Walsworth Franklin Bevins Attorney in
& McCall-Orange Charge
Walsworth Franklin Bevins
& McCall-Orange

Gordon & Rees-San Attorney in
Francisco Charge
Brydon Hugo & Parker-San Attorney in
Francisco Charge
Walsworth Frankiin Bevins Attorney in
& McCall-Orange Charge
Walsworth Franklin Bevins

Attorney

& McCall-Orange Attorney

Sedgwick LLP-Seattie Attorney
Attorney in

Morthole, Karl R Charge

E
Service
Ee
Service
EB
Service
E-
Service
E-
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E
Service
E
Service
EB
Service

Lf

i Begin a New Transaction.

Return to My Fife & ServeXpress

https://secure.fileandservexpress.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSub...

=] [Print | L Transaction Report

About File & ServeXpress | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Customer Support - 1-888-529-7587
Copyright © 2014 File & ServeXpress Holdings, LLC. Ail rights reserved,

4/30/2014EXHIBIT EKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood*

A Professional Law Corporation

. OF Comise!
Jack London Marker * 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 + Oakland, CA 94607 Hanes © Sciveong
‘Ted W. Pelletier

Steven Kazan
David M. McClain
Joseph D. Sactertey (S10) 302-1000 * (510) 835-4913 * www.kazanlaw.com
Gordon D. Greenwood

Philip A. Harley (1947-2009)

Francis 2, Fernandez

Denise Abrams

Justin Bost

April 30, 2014

sAutume A, Mesa

Mark A, Swanson
Joseph Nicholson
Ryan Harris
Jolianna Rivera
Carole M. Bosch

Via Electronic Service

Garrett Sanderson

Carroll Burdick & McDonough
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104

Re: Harold Koepke and Nancy Karidis-Keepke v. Ford Motor Company, ct al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No, CGC13276217
Your Chient: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc,

Dear Sanderson:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today regarding tomorrow’s ex parte
application. We disagree with your contention that C.C.P. § 2034.250(b)(6) entitles Volkswagen
to a definitive list of experts which plaintiffs will call at trial, because this clearly invades
attorney work product.

As discussed, while we continue to believe Volkswagen’s application is grossly
premature considering that the parties are still in the midst of fact discovery, if Volkswagen
insists on pressing ahead and is able to obtain a hearing date on shortened time, plaintiffs will
seek the Court’s permission to file a cross-motion to reduce the mumber of experts listed by all
defendants, and an order that, under C.C.P. § 2034.250(b)(5), defendants must coordinate
duplicative experts to mitigate the burden imposed by the inclusion of over 130 experts identified
in defendants’ disclosures.

Very truly yours,

BELLE

Ryan Hapis °

ec: All Counsel Via File & ServeXpressEXHIBIT FKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corporation

‘ite 4100 + Cakland, California 94607

+ 55 Hardson

Jack London Market

+ www.kazanlaw.com

13

» 16

2
2
§
S
&

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

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

Ryan Harris, Esq. (C.S.B. # 287105)
RHartis@kazanlaw.com

KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD

A Professional Law Corporation

Jack London Market

55 Harrison Street, Suite 460

Oakland, California 94607

Telephone: (510) 302-1000

Facsimile: ($10) 835-4913

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. RESPONSE TO DEMAND TO

EXCHANGE LISTS OF EXPERT
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., WITNESSES PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034

Defendants.
Action Filed: December 3, 2013

Trial Date: June 16, 2014

Plaintiffs Harold Koepke and Nancy Karidis-Koepke reserve the right to call any and ali
of the following persons as retained or percipient expert witnesses at trial in the above-entitled
action. All experts listed below have agreed to testify at trial, if necessary and will be sufficiently
familiar with the case to provide a meaningful oral deposition should one be necessary.

1. Stephen L. Berger, P.E., 4418 Pleasant Valley Court, Oakland, California 94611.

2. Arnold Brody, Ph.D, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Molecular
Biomedical Sciences, 4700 Hillsborough Street at William Moore Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina

27606,
3 Barry Castleman, Ph.D., 4406 Oxford St., Garrett Park, MD 20896,

1308402.2, 1
RESPONSE TO DEMAND TO EXCHANGE LISTS OF EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 2034Kazan, McClain, Satteriey & Greenwood

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

(510} 302-1060 * Fax: (510) 835-4913 + wwwkazanlaw.com

oO NM TD HH B&B &Y LD

10

4, Ronald F, Dodson, Ph.D., University of Texas, Health Center at Tyler, P.O. Box

2003, Tyler, Texas 75710.

5. David Steven Egilman, M.D., M.P.H., Never Again Consulting, 8 North Main
Street, Suite 404, Attleboro, MA 02703.

6. Michael John Eilenbecker, Ph.D., C.LH., 125 Centre Street, Concord, New
Hampshire 03301,

7. Douglas Fowler, C.LH., Ph.D., deceased, by prior trial or deposition testimony.

8. Arthur L. Frank, M_D., Ph.D., Drexel University, School of Public Health, 245 N.
15th St., Mail Stop 660, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192,

a Barry Horn, M.D., 2450 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, California 94705.

0. Dr. Wilhelm C, Hueper, deceased; trial testimony as set forth in his deposition
upon written questions in DeRocco and Carollo v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., et al., Court of
Commo une 16, 1977, and The
Louisville Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of Sampson v. Johns-Manville
Corporation, Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch, Louisville, Kentucky, taken on June
24, 1977.

L Robert Johnson, MBA, 4984 El Camino Real, Suite 210, Los Altos, California
94022,

12, William Longo, Ph.D., Materials Analytical Services, 3945 Lakefield Court,
Suwanee, Georgia 30024.

13. Eugene Jerome Mark, M.D., Pathology Associates, 55 Fruit Street, WRN 2,
Boston, MA 02114.

14, William Salyer, M.D., 2450 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, California 94705,

15. Allan Smith, M.D., Ph.D., 2211 Braemar Road, Oakland, California 94602.

16. Samuel M. Sobol, M.D., 435 Crestmont Drive, San Francisco, CA 94131.

17. Plaintiffs further reserve the right to call as expert witnesses any of plaintiff's
treating physicians, including the following:

a Jan Anderson, MD

1305402.2 2
RESPONSE TO DEMAND TO EXCHANGE LISTS OF EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL.
PROCEDURE SECTION 2034Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corporation

Jack London Market + 55 Marrison Street, Suite 400

* Oakland, California 94607

(S10) 302-1000 + Fax: (510) 835-4913 * www.kazanlaw.com

an Ue w

b. Joel Neal, MD

c. Chuong D. Hoang, MD

d. Michael Bozuk, MD

e. Richard Wilber, MD

f Christina Kong, MD

Bz Erich Schwartz, MD
Paul Umino, MD

=
5

ele Minikel, MD
je Thomas Stanton, MD

k. William Meseroll, MD

L Scott Lomax, MD

m. Barbara E. Cohn, MD

n Lailith Mohan, MD

0. Raymond Ery, MD

18, Any and all individuals designated as experts by any other party to this action.

19. Any and all individuals hereinafter selected and designated as experts pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034,

20. Any and all officers, executives, or employees of any defendant in this action
previously deposed in the United States or Canada.

Plaintiff's reserve the right, at their option to exclude any individual designated herein as an
expert.

Plaintiffs also reserve the right to call additional expert witnesses for the purposes of

rebuttal or impeachment, if necessary, at the time of the trial.

13054022 3

RESPONSE TO DEMAND TO EXCHANGE LISTS OF EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 2034Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood

A Professional Law Corporation

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

(510) 302-1000 » Fax: S10} 835-4913 + www.kazanlaw.com

Ce NH

10
ll
12
13
14
1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF JUSTIN A. BOSL

1, Justin A. Bosl, declare as follows:

Jam an attorney licensed to practice in California and am a partner in the law firm of
KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD, A Professional Law Corporation,
Oakland, California, plaintiffs' counsel.

I make this declaration in compliance with C.C.P. §2034.260.

The following retained experts have agreed or will agree to testify at trial and wil! be
sufficiently