Motion-Secondary: JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PQ. BOX 2248,

McMAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY. SLATTERY, PFALZER. BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

WALNUT CREEK, CA $4594

TELEPHONE (925) 939-5330

a “Co oO ~~] OO wa > >

THOMAS E. PFALZER {State Bar No. 85261)

DENISE J. SERRA (State Bar No. 80602) ELECTRONICALLY
MCNAMARA, DOnGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY,

PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP FILED -
1211 Newell Avenue Supericr cout a California,
Post Office Box 5288 ONY OF ON ATANAISCO
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 MAR 27 2007 |
Telephone: (925) 939-5330 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk;
Facsimile: {925} 939-0203 BY: VANESSA WU

Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant
Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC formerly known as Peerless
Pump Company

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JAMES RODAMER and NANCY Case No. CGC-06-456569

RODAMER,
DECLARATION OF DENISE J. SERRA IN

Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY,
VS. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ct al., (WITH EXHIBITS A-E}

Defendants. Date: Apnil 13, 2007
‘Time: 2:30 a.m.

Dept: 301

Judge: Hon. Peter J. Busch
Trial Date: April 30, 2007

Action Filed: September 29, 2006

BECLARATION OF DENISE J. SERRA & EXH A-EA 94596

MeNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY. SLATTERY, PFALZER. BORGES & BROTHERS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

P.O, BOX 5288, WALNUT CREEK
0

wk ew NH

Sow aa

1, Denise J. Serra declare as follows:

1. Lam an attomey at law duly licensed to practice hefore all the courts of California,
1am a partner of the law firm McNamara, Dodge, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Pfalzer & Borges LLP,
counsel of record for defendant STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS (USA), LLC formerly known as
PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY (hereafter “Sterling”. Unless otherwise indicated, I make the
following statements of my own personal knowledge and, if called upon to do so, could and
would competently testify thereto.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs" Complaint
for Damages, Negligence, Strict Liability, Punitive Damages, Loss of Consortium (Asbestos),
filed September 29, 2006.

3. Attached hercto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Excerpts of the
Deposition of James Rodamer, taken January 30, 2007.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Defendant Sterling
Fluid Systems (USA), LLC FKA Peerless Pump Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff - Set One
(Personal Injury).

5, Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Defendant Sterling
Fluid Systems (USA), LLC FKA Requests for Production to Plaintiff - Set One (Personal Injury),

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Defendant Sterling
Fluid Systems (USA), LLC’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded to Plaintiff.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Responses to
Sterling Fluid System (USA) LLC. FKA Peerless Pump Company’s Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Personal Injury Plaintiff (Set One).

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Responses to
Sterling Fluid System (USA) LLC, FKA Peerless Pump Company's Requests for Production to
Plaintiff (Set One) Personal Injury.

9, Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Responses to
Sterling Fluid System (USA) LLC. FKA Peerless Pump Company's Form Interrogatories General

to Personal Injury Plaintiff (Set One).

2

DECLARATION OF DENISE J. SERRA & EXH A-E2
5
2
2
5
Z
£
q

McNAMARA. DODGE, NEY. BEATTY,

RNEYS AT LAW

PO. BOX S288, WALNUT CREEK, CA 4596

TRLEPHONE, (925) 939-5490

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a truc and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answers to
Standard Interrogatories Propounded by Defendants (Personal Injury) Set 1.

Il, Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and comect copy of Plaintiff's Answers to
Standard Interrogatories Propounded by Defendants (Personal Injury) Set 2.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Affidavit of Robert L. |
Partin,

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

foregoing is truc and correct.

Dated: March 26, 2007

K*SFLIOTAIMS)Dee of DIS doe

3

DECLARATION OF DENISE J. SERRA & EXH A-EEXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT Aa WON

JEFFREY A KAISER [SBN 160594]
MARTHA A. Il. BERMAN [SBN 122212]
LEVIN SIMES KAISER & GORNICK, LLP
ONE BUSH STREET, 14" FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE (415) 646-7160

FACSIMILE (415) 981-1270

gg se

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.
JAMES RODAMER AND NANCY RODAMER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
{UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)

JAMES RODAMER AND NANCY RODAMER,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs.

A. W. CHESTERTON COMPANY;
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INCS,

ALLIS CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT
LIABILITY TRUST;

ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD.5

BOC EDWARDS, INC.;

BUFFALO PUMPS, IN'
CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.;

CRANE CO. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-
IN-INTEREST YO CHAPMAN VALVE CO,
CSR, LTD., AIA COLONIAL SUGAR REFINERY;
DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, L-P., FKA AZROCK
INDUSTRIES, INC.;
DOUGLASS INSULATION CO., INC;

DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
ELLIOTT COMPANY PKA ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC;

FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP CORP.

FAMILIAN CORPORATION DBA FAMILIAN PIPE &
SUPPLY;

FOSTER WHEELER, LL
GARDNER DENVER, INC3,
GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST
TO GARLOCK, INC;

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;

}
d
)
)
)
)
)
d
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
y
)
)
)
)
d
)
)
)
)

No €6C-06-456569

COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES

NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY,
PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM,

(ASBESTOS)

1:\2059 Roane CoMPLAMEE\COMPLAIN #1 LOK OLGEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION;
GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED;
GRINNELL CORPORATION:
HAMILTON MATERIALS, IN
HENRY VOGT MACHINE CO;

HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY;

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. FKA IMO DELAYAL INC;
INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY;

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY;

ITT INDUSTRIES, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST FO ALLIS CHALMERS,
CORP. AND BELL & GOSSETT;

J.T. THORPE & SON, INC5

JOHN K. BICE, INC5

JOHNSON & MAPE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC;

LESLIE CONTROLS, IN
MeMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY;

METEX MFG. CORPORATION FKA KENTILE
FLOORS INC5

OWENS-ILLINOIS INC.

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS;
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST
TO SACOMO SIERRA AND SACOMO
MANUFACTURING COMPANY;

PLANT INSULATION COMPANY;

QUINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC

RF, MACDONALD CO.

RAPID AMERICAN CORP;

RAY L. HELLWIG MECHANICAL CO., INC.;

RAY L. HELLWIG PLUMBING & HEATING, INC,
SOCO-WEST, INC. FKA BRENNTAG WEST, INC. FKA
SOCO-LYNCH CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS SUCCESSOR-IN-ANTEREST TO WESTERN
CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS (USA) LLC, FORMERLY
KNOWN AS PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY;

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY;
THOMAS DEE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC;
UNIROYAL, IN'
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;

VIACOM, INCORPORATED AS SUCCESSOR-BY-
MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION FKA
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION;
WARREN PUMPS, LLC;

WESTBURNE SUPPLY, INC. {NDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PE. O'HAIR &

1.2059 RonaMeR\ Cons anna \COULAIN PIZ0C BOC1

COMPANY; )
YARWAY CORPORATION )
AND FIRST DOE THROUGH THREE HUNDREDTH 3
DOE, INCLUSIVE, )
DEFENDANTS }

)

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

|. The tne names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
govemnmental or otherwise, of defendants FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDREDTH DOE,
inclusive, are known to plaintiffs at this time, who thercfore sue said defendants by such fictitious
names. When the tue names and capacities of said defendants have been ascertained, plaintiff
will amend this complaint accordingly. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,
that each defendant designated herein as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other
actionable manner, Jor the events and happenings hereinafter referred (o, and caused injuries and
damages proximalcl thereby to the Plaintiffs, as hereinafter alleged

2 ALall Limes herein mentioned, cach of the defendants, excep! as otherwise alleged,
was the agent, servant, employee and/or joint venturer of her co-defendants, and each of them, and
at all said times, each defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service,
‘employment andlor joint venture. Plaintiffs do not allege thal Asbestos Corporation Ltd. was the
agent, servant, employee and/oy joint venturer of any entity during any of the years Asbestos
Comoration Lid. was owned by any governmental agency. Certain defendants agreed and
conspired among themselves, and with certain other individuals and/or entities, to act, or not to

act, in such a manner that resulted in injury to the Plaintilf, JAMES RODAMER, and such

defendants, a8 co-conspirators, are liable for the acts, or failures te act. of other conspiring
defendants. Plaintifis de not allege that Asbestos Corporation 11d. conspited with any entity

during any of the years Asbestos Corporation Lid. was owned by any governmental agency.

12059 RooAMER\ ConeaINT\COMMLAINT LOE DOCau ew

3 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that al all times herein
mentioned, defendants, A. W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; ARMSTRONG
INTERNATIONAL, {NC.; ALLIS CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST; ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD.; BOC EDWARDS, INC,; BUFFALO.
PUMPS, INC.; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC; CRANE CO. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CHAPMAN VALVE CO.; CSR, LTD., AKA COLONIAL
SUGAR REFINERY; DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, L-P., FKA AZROCK INDUSTRIES,
INC.; DOUGLASS INSULATION CO., INC; DURABLA MANUFACTURING
COMPANY; ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC;
FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP CORP.; FAMILIAN CORPORATION DBA FAMILIAN
PIPE & SUPPLY; FOSTER WHEELER, LLC; GARDNER DENVER, INC.; GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO GARLOCK, INC; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-
PACIFIC CORPORATION; GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED; GRINNELL
CORPORATION; HAMILTON MATERIALS, INC.; HENRY VOGT MACHINE CO.;
HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. FKA IMO
DELAVAL INC; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY; ITT INDUSTRIES, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO ALLIS CHALMERS, CORP. AND BELL & GOSSETT; J. T. THORPE &

SON, IP JOHN K. BICE, INC.; JOHNSON & MAPE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;

KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC LESLEE CONTROLS, INC.; MeMASTER-CARR
SUPPLY COMPANY; METEX MFG. CORPORATION FKA KENTILE FLOORS INC

OWENS-ILLINOIS INC.; OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS; PARKER-HANNIFIN

1:\2059 RopanieR\ COMPL AAT COMMABIT91:0¢ DOCCORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SACOMO
SIERRA AND SACOMO MANUFACTURING COMPANY; PLANT INSULATION
COMPANY; QUINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.; RF. MACDONALD CO.; RAPID
AMERICAN CORP.; RAY L. HELLWIG MECHANICAL CO., INC, RAY L. HELLWIG
PLUMBING & HEATING, INC; SOCO-WEST, INC. FKA BRENNTAG WEST, INC.
EKA SOCO-LYNCH CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO WESTERN CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS (USA) LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS PEERLESS PUMP
COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; THOMAS DEE
ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC; UNIROYAL, INC; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; VIACOM, INCORPORATED AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO CBS
CORPORATION FKA WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; WARREN
PUMPS, LLC; WESTBURNE SUPPLY, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO P.£. O'HAIR & COMPANY; YARWAY CORPORATION AND FIRST
DOE THROUGH THREE HUNDREDTH DOE, INCLUSIVE, are corporations organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or the Inws of some state or
foreiga jurisdiction, and that said defendants were and are authorized to do and are doing business
in the State of California, and that said defendants have regularly conducted business in the City
and County of San Francisco, Stale of California. The defendants identified in this paragraph are
collectively hereinafter referred (o us “ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS.”

4 Atal times herein mentioned, each of the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was the
successor, successor in business, successor in product line or # portion therco!, parent, subsidiary.
wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching,

studying, manuf

s, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buyin,

1.\ 2058 RoDantie\ COMPLE \COMM ANT P2108 POCwin

offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation. repairing,
marketing, warranting, rebranding, handling, modifying, scraping, disturbing, manufacturing for
others, packaging and/or advertising a cerlain substance the generic name for which is asbestos,
and other products containing said substance. Said entities shall hereinafter collectively be called
“alternate entities”. Each of the herein named ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS are liable for the
tortuous conduct of each successor, successor in business, successor in product line or « portion
thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product fine or a portion
thereof, parent, subsidiary, alter-cgo, whole of partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity,
or entity that it asa member of, or funded, that researched, studied, manufactured, fabricated,
designed, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for saie, sold, inspected,

serviced. installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, 1ebranded,

manufactured fo: others and advertised a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos,
and other products containing said substance. The following ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and

each of them, are liable for the acts of each and every “alternate entity”, and each of them, in that

there has been a virtual destruction of plaintiffs remedy against each such “alternate entity’
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have acquired the assets. product line. 01
apportion thereof, of each such “alternate entity”; ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of

them, caused the destruction of plaintiffs remedy against each such “alternate entity”; each suck

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS has the ability to assume the risk-spreading role of cach such
“altemate entity”; ard that each such ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS enjoys the goodwill originally

attached fo cach such “alternate entity”

BRENDAN | ALTERNATE BNITY
‘CRANE CO ~ CHAPMAN VALVE CO.
CSR UTD COLONIAL SUGAR REFINERY

152059 RODAKI\ CON ABNT\COMPL AIRE LOC DOSDOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, LP AZROCK INDUSTRIES, INC |

ELLIOTT COMPANY ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO, INC

FAMILIAN CORPORATION FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY

GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC | GARLOCK, INC

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC IMO DELAVAL ING.
TTT INDUSTRIES, INC. BELL & GOSSETT, ALLIS CHALMERS,
CORP;
METEX MPG. CORPORATION KENTILE FLOORS INC )
i
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION SACOMO SIERRA; SACOMO }
MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
SOCO-WEST, INC BRENNTAG WEST, INC; SOCO-LYNCH |}
CORPORATION; WESTERN CHEMICAL & |

MANUFACTURING COMPANY

i
i
STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS (USA) LLC, PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY 1
1
1

VIACOM, INCORPORATED CBS CORPORATION, WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION
WESTBURNE SUPPLY, INC PE O'HAIR & COMPANY
5 The Federal Courls lack jurisdiction over this action and removal is therefore

improper There is incomplete diversity of citizenship duc to the presence of a California
ASBESTOS DEFENDANT. Every claim arising under the Constitution, ireaties, or laws of the

United States is expressly disclaimed. This includes any cfaim arising bom an act on

1¢ ws slofined by Article I, section. 8, clause 17 of the United Statcs Constitution.

a Fedeal finch
This also includes any claim arising from uny act or omission of the Untied States, any agency
thereo®, any officer of the United States, or a claims against any other person or entity that is bascd

jon of the United States, any agency thereof or

on an aes that was performed under specific di

any Officer of the United States. No claim of admiralty or maritime law is raised. Plaintiffs sue

11\2059 AooanHe\ Conan

\EOMPLAIN M20 DOCno foreign state or agency. Venue is proper in San Francisee County, Superior Court of California

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-NEGLIGENCE.

(Personal Injuries)
PLAINTIFF JAMES RODAMER COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF

THEM AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL INJURIES)
ALLEGES:
6 Plaintif( realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the proceeding

paragraphs of this Complaint

7 Atal times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS and each of them
‘were engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing,
Jeasing, buying, setting, inspecting, servicing, repairing, distributing, modifying, handling,
installing, contracting to install, removing, contracting to remove, disturbing, cutting, grinding,
scraping, marketing, warranting and/or advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which
is asbestos, asid/or ather products containing said substance, oi are engaged in the business of
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, and marketing of safety

equipment, including respiratory protective devices which were intended to block the entry of

asbestos fibers into the bodies of workers who were exposed to asbestos in the workplace and
other locations

8 Atal times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them
were aware thal the original gaskets and packing supplied with their equipment would need to be

n and maintenance of

removed and replaced with new paskets and packing during ordinary operati
their equipment. Ileal and pressure generated by operition would affect the original and
seplacement gaskets and packing - ¢ g, making them brite, Séable and not reusable, making
replacement necessmry and dangerous {1 was foreseeable that the process of removing old gaskets
and packing, and replacing them with the new materials during ordinary maintenance operations

would disturb the asbestos materials, releasing asbestos into the air.

1.\ 2059 Ropatts\ CoAtEAESACOMPL AINE!PF OCDEoer ah ee

9. tall times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, singularly and jointly, negligently and carclessly researched, tested or failed to test, warned
or failed to warn, manufactured and/or caused to be manufactured, designed, developed,
distributed, labeled, advertised, marketed, warranted, inspected, repaired, installed, scraped, cut,
ground, distributed, handled, fabricated, assembled, modified, serviced, and/or sold a certain
substance, the generic name of which is asbestos, and/or other produets containing said substance,
and said substance wes capable of causing and did, in fact, proximately cause personal injuries to
users, consumers, workers and others, while being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable,
thereby rendering said substances unsafe and dangerous for use by the consumers, users,
bystanders or workers exposed thereto;

10. Plaintiff herein is a worker who for or during a substantial iength of time used,
handled or has been otherwise exposed to the asbestos and asbestos products referred o herein in a
manner that was rexsonably foresceable

11. Asadirect and proximate resull of the conduct of the ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as aforesaid, the exposure (o asbestos caused severe and
permanent malignant injuries to the plaintiff, including, but no: limited to, mesothelioma and other
lung damage

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that mesothelioma is a

progressive lung discase caused by inhalation of asbestos Gbers without perceptible trauma and

that said disease results from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products over a period of time.

13, Plaintiff presently believes thet he suflers from 2 medical condition known as
mesothefioma, a Img disease rebated to the exposure (0 asbestos. Plaintiff was not aware that
exposure fo asbestos presented any tisk of injury and/or disease to him, and had not been advised

or informed by anyone that he could conttact any disease, sickness or injury as 2 resull of working

1F\2059 Roo aMen\ Com ABUT COMPLAINT PLLOC DOCin the vicinity of asbestos

14. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, plaintiff is dying and has suffered, and continues to suffer
permanent non-malignant injuries to his person, body and health, including but not limited to
mesothelioma, other lung damage, all to his general damages in a sum invoking the unlimited
jurisdiction of the Court

1S. Ase direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conducl of the ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, plaintiff has incurred, is presently incurring and will incur ia
the future, liability for physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospitals, x-rays and
other medical treatment, the true and exact amount thereof being unknowa to plaintiff at this time,

and plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint accordingly when the true and exact cost thereof

is ascertained

16. Plaintiff JAMES RODAMER has lost pre-judgment imetest pursuant to Civil Code
Section 3288, the exact amount of which plaintift prays leave to insert herein when finally
ascertained

17. Inresearching, testing, manufactuc ing, distributing, labeling, and marketing said
products, ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS in this cause of action named, and each of them, did so
with conscious disregard for the safety of the users of said products, in that ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS had specific prior knowledge that there was a nigh risk of injury or death
resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos products, including but not limited to
mesothelioma, Said knowledge was obtained, in part, fram scientific studies, government data,

ch ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS isad access, as well as scientific studies

and medical data lu \

performed by, at the request of, or with the assistance of, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and

which knowledge was obtained by said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS on or before 1933, and

192059 Rewante\ Conmaainer\COMPLAIR #1 LOC OO2
3

thereafter.

18 Onor before 1933, and thereafier, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS were aware
that users of asbestos and asbestos products, as wel! as members of the general public who would
be exposed to asbestos and asbestos products, had no knowiedge or information indicating that
asbestos could cause injury, and said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS knew that the users of
asbestos and asbestos products, as well as members of the general public who were exposed to
asbestos and asbestos products, would assume, and in fact did assume, that exposure to asbestos
and asbestos prothucts was safe, when in fact said exposure was extremely hazardous to human
lite

19. With said knowledge, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS opted to manufacture and
distribute said asbestos and asbestos products without attempting to protect users from or wam
uusers of, the high risk of injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos and asbestos products

Rather than attempting (o protect users and workers from, or warn workers and users of, the high

risk of injury or dleati: resulting from exposure te agbesios and asbestos products, ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to reveal their knowiedge of said risk, fraudulently,
consciously and actively concealed and suppressed said knowledge from members of the general
public that asbestos and asbestos products were unsafe for all reasonably foreseeable wse, with the
knowledge of the falsity of said implied representations

20. Tae above referenced conduct of said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was
motivated by the financial interest of said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS in the continving,
uninterrupted distribution and marketing of ashestos and asbestos products. In pursuauce of said
Jinanciai motivation, said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS consciously disicgarded the safety of the
users of, and persons exposed fo, asbestos and asbestos pinducts, and were in fact, consciously

swilling ta permit asbestos and asbestos producls to cause injury 10 workers and users thereof, und

FA 2089 Re nrk\ ComePLAWT\COMMLAINT FY LOC BOCpersons exposed [herelo, including plaintiff.

As the above referenced conduct of said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS was and is

vile, base, willful, malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and
indifference to the safety and health of workers exposed to asbestos ancl asbestos products,
including plaintiff, plaintiff, for the sake of example, and by way of punishing said ASBESTOS

DEFENDANTS, seeks puniti

Jamages according ta poo!
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each
of them, as hereafiet set forth
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT LIABILITY
AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR STRICT LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF THE ASBESTOS
DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM, AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

22. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each of the proceeding

paragraphs of this Complaint

23. ASBESTOS DEF

NDANTS and cach of them, researched, manufactured, tested
or failed to test, warned oF failed to warn, designed, labeled, distributed, advertised, marketed,
warranted, distributed, handled, installed, modified, scraped, inspected, repaired, offered for sale
and sold a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos and ether products containing
said substance, which substance is defective, in that same was eapable of causing and did, in fact,
couse personal injuries, including mesothelioma and other lung damage, to the users and
consumers thereof white being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, thereby rendering the

same unsafe and dangerous for use by consumers, users, bystanders and workers exposed thereto;

said ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and cach of them, further failed io adequately wam of the
risks to which plaintift and others similarly situated were exposed

24 Atall times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of thera

F.\2059 Rospsatee\ Conialvr cour AREF 1C BOCwere aware that (he original gaskets and packing supplied with their equipment would need to be
removed and replaced with new gaskets and packing during ordinary operation and maintenance of
their equipment. Heat and pressure generated by operation would affect the original and
replacement gaskets and packing ~ e.g., making them britie, friable and not reusable, making
replacement necessary and dangerous. It was foreseeable that the process of removing old gaskets
and packing, and replacing them with the now materials during ordinary maintenance operations
would disturb the asbestos matetials, releasing asbestos imo the air.

23. Asedirect and proximate result thereof, plaintiff has suffered the injuries and
damayes as previously set forth including those alleged in the First and Second Causes of Action,
inclusive

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, PLAINTIFFNANCY RODAMER COMPLAINS OF
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
26. Plaintiff NANCY RODAMER incorporates herein by reference and makes a part

hereof as though fully set forth herein, in the First and Second Causes of Action of this Complaint

Plaintiff NANCY RODAMER is now, and at times herein mentioned, the lawfully

wedded spouse of JAMES RODAMER.

Asa direct and proximate result of the acts of ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and
each of them, as set forth and incorporated herein by reference, and the severe injuries caused
thereby to JAMES RODAMER as alleged in his Complaint, plaintiff NANCY RODAMER has
suffered. and for long period of time will cantinue to suffer Joss of consortium, incleding but not
by way of limitation, loss of services, marital relations, society. comfort, companionship, love and
affection of her said spouse, and has suffered severe mental and emotional distress an¢ general

nervousness as a result thereol

[:\ 2459 RODANER\ COMPLANT\ COMP AINE PEC BOC29. Plaintiff? NANCY RODAMER, asa result of the foregoing described injuries to ber

said spouse, has been generally damaged in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the

Municipal Court
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs JAMES RODAMER AND NANCY RODAMER pray judgment
against ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows:

1. For plaintiff's general damages according to proof

2. For plaintiff. JAMES RODAMER'S medical and related expenses according to

w

For plaintiff's prejudgment interest according to proof, pursuant to Civil Code
section 3288;
4. For loss of income according to proof,

5 Forplaintiff's costs of suit herein,

6 For toss of care, comfort and saciety;

7. Aste those ASBESTOS DE

NDANTS named in the First Cause of Action, for
exemplary or punitive damages according to proof; and

8 For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: September 28, 2006

Levin Sintes Kaiser & Gornick Lu

1-\2089 RoaaeR\ CoN AmNe"\ COMPLAIN PLL0C DOCEXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT BVIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES RODAMER - VOL. V - 1/30/2007

Page 646
JN THE SUPFRTOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

---000'

JAMES RODAMER and NANCY RODAMER,
Plaintiffs,

va. NO. 06-456569

PANY, ot al.,

Defendants.

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES RODAMER
lume ¥, Pages 646-771
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

REPORTED BY:
GAIL C. 3ECK
CSR #5289

TOOKER & ANTZ
RELORTING § VIDEC SERVTCRS
350 SANSOME STRFRT, SOTTE.
SAN FRANCTSCO, CALIFORNIA
418.392.0650

cou

TOOKER & ANTZ COURT REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICES (415-392-0650)
‘9f880340-bdaa-11db-8460-000488220961VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES RODAMER - VOL. V - 1/30/2007

Page 730
1 going.
2 Q. Sir, do you have any information or knowledge
3 that you ever worked on or around a product manufactured
4 by FMC Corporation?
S A. No,
6 MS. BERMAN: It's argumentative and assumes
7 facts.

= MS, GUSTAFSON: Q. Sir, have you ever heard of

8 Sterling Fluid Systems?

10 A. No.
n Q. Do you have any information or knowledge that you
12 ever worked on or around a product manufactured by

18 Sterling Fluid Systems?

u A. I don't know what they manufactured, so I can't
1s answer that.

26 @. So you don't have any information of working on a
Vv Sterling Fluid product?

18 A. Do I have any documents?

29 Q. Do you have any information?

MS. BERMAN: Same objections.
al THE WITNESS: I don't know what products we're

27 talking about.

23 MS. GUSTAFSON: ©. Sir, have you ever heard of
24 Peerless Pumps?
2s A. Yes.

TOOKER & ANTZ COURT REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICES (415-392-0650)
‘9f886340-bdaa-1 1db-8460-000d88200961VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES RODAMER - VOL. V - 1/30/2007

Page 731
tT. Q. And I take it you associate pumps with Peerless
2 Pumps or is there another product?

3 A. No, just pumps.

4 Q. Pumps. Do you recall ever working on a Peerless
5 pump?

é A. I cannot recall specific names of pumps I worked
7 on.

8 @. Where do you recall hearing the name Peerless

10 A. Besides when you just mentioned it?
- Q. Correct.
uz A. It would be Raychem.

@. Do you associate any specific time or locatil
14 with hearing the name Peerless Pumps?

1s A. I do not.

2. Do you associate any specific type of pump with

13 peerless Pumps?

18 A. I do not.

19 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think that's all I have. Thank
2G you.

a MS. VOTAW: Any other client specific

22 questioning? Folks on the phone, do you have questions?
23 MR. SMITH: Sure.

za EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:

2e MR. SMITH: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Rodamer.

TOOKER & ANTZ COURT REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICES (415-392-0650)
‘9f886340-bdae-1 1db-8460-000d88269961EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT CMcNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY. SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

THOMAS E. PFALZER (State Bar No. 85261)
PATRICK L. MOORE (State Bar No, 84909)
DEBORAH M, D. GUSTAFSON (State Bar No. 215315)
McNamaxa, Doogi, Ney, BEATTY, SLATTERY,
Praizer, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

123: Newell Avenue

Post Office Box 5288

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Telephone: (925) 939-5330

Facsimile: (925) 939-0203

Attomeys for Defendant
Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peerless Purp
Company

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JAMES RODAMER and NANCY Case No. CGC06-456569
RODAMER,
DEFENDANT STERLING FLUID
Plaintiff, SYSTEMS (USA), LLC FKA PEERLESS
PUMP SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
vs. TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONE (PERSONAL
FNJURY)

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al.,
Action Filed: 9/29/2006
Defendant.

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peerless
Pump Company

RESPONDING PARTY: _ Plaintiff James Rodamer

SET NUMBER: ONE

Defendant Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peerless Pump Company (nercinafter
“Sterling Hluid Systems”), requests that plaintiff answer, in writing, under oath, the following set
of interrogatories pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.
INTERROGATORY NO. }

Do YOU contend that YOU were occupationz!ly exposed to respirable asbestos fibers

relcased by an ashestos-containing product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems?

(For purposes of these interrogatories, the terms “YOU” or “YOUR includes you, your agents,

DEFENDANT STERLING Fl. JID SYSTEMS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF - SE ONEHERS LLP

McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PPALZER, BORGES & BRO

4536

your employess, your attomeys, investigators, and anyone else acting on your schalZ).

List each LOCATION (as used herein, LOCATION shall mean the name of the facility,
yard, plant, unit, building or ship, and the city and state) where YOU contend that YOU were
exposed to asbestos fibers from a product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systen:s
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Provide the date(s) on which YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos fibers

from a product manufactured by defendant Sterling Pluid Systems.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

DESCRIBE (as used herein, DESCRIBE shall mean to provide 2 description of the

physical characteristics of an asbestos-containing product, including its brand name, physical

dimensions, color, shape, visible logo and the uses for which it was employed) each asbestos-
containing product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, that YOU contend
exposed YOU to zespirable asbestos fibers
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

IDENTIFY (as used herein, IDENTIFY shall mean to provide the name and last known

employer, residence address and home telephone number of) all persons who were percipient

witnesses to you: exposure to asbestos fibers from a product manufactured by defendant Sterling !

Fluid Systems
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

If YOU contend that you were exposed to respirable asbestos-fibers released by an
asbestos-containing product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, under what
circumstances were the fibers released by the product?

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Did YOU ever MANIPULATE {as used herein, MANIPULATE shall mean to install or
remove or otherwise physically disturb) any asbostos-containing component part of a product
manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems?

a

2

DEFENDANT STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONEMcNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP.

27
28

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

If you contend that yor MANIPULATED any asbestos-containing component part of a
product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, state all facts which support your
contention. |
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

If YOU contend that you MANIPULATED any asbestos-containing component part of a
product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, IDENTIFY all persons who were
percipient witnesses to thal occurrence.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Did any other person ever MANIPULATE any asbestos-containing component part of a
product manufac‘ured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, white you were present at the jobsite?

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

If YOU contend that any other person MANIPULATED any  asbestos-containing

component part of a product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, state all facts
which support your contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

If YOU contend that any other person MANIPULATED any  asbestos-containing .
component part of a product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, IDENTIFY all |
persons who were percipient witnesses to that occasion.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: i
State all facts which support YOUR contention that ashestos material was a component

part of any product manufactured by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems, which was at any of your

j
jobsites while you were present. |

State all facts which support YOUR contention that an asbestos-containing component
part of a product manufactured by Sterling Fluid Systems, was being MANIPULATED at your
Jobsites while you were present,
it

3

DEFENDANT

TERLING FLUID SYSTEMS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONE.PALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

‘AMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SL.

ORNEYS AT LAW

we

a

INTERROGATORY NO. }

Do YOU contend that Sterling Fluid Systems was negligent in this case’?
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

If YOU contend that Sterling Fluic Systems was negligent in this case, set forth ali facts in
support of YOUR contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

If YOU contend that Sterling Fluid Systems was negligent in this case, IDENTIFY all
witnesses who have knowledge of the facls upon which YOU base YOUR contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18

If YOU contend that Sterling Fiuid Systems was negligent in this case, DESCRIBE (
“DESCRIBE” in the following interrogatories means give a specific description of the document
for purposes of identification for a request for production) each DOCUMENT (“DOCUMENT”
means any written materiai, photographs, movies, slides, videotapes, copies of original materials,
forms, invoices, machine readabie information or any other tangible item containing information

as defined in EVIDENCE CODE §250) which YOU believe supports such contention.

INTERROGATORY NO, 19:
Do YOU contend that Sterling Fluid Systems is strictly liable in this case?
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

If YOU contend Sterling Fiuid Systems was strictly liable in this case, set forth all facts in
support of YOUR contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21

If YOU contend that Sterling Fluid Systems was strictly Hable in this case, IDENTIFY all
witnesses who bave knowledge of the facts upon whieh YOU base YOUR contention.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

If YOU contend that Sterling Fluid Systems was strictly liable in this case, DESCRIBE,
each DOCUMENT which YOU believe supports such contention.
Wt
Mt

4

DEFENDANT STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF — SET ONESLATTERY. PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

&
=
z
°
8
3
8
=
=

INTERROGATORY NO, 23:

Have YOU made a claim to any ashestos personal injury bankruptey ‘rust for any alleged
asbestos related injury.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

If YOU made a claim to any asbestos personal injury bankruptcy trast for any alleged

asbestos related injury, please IDENTIFY (as used herein, IDENTIFY shat] mean to provide the

name, address, and home telephone number of) such trust.
INTERROGATORY NO. 25

If YOU made a claim to any asbestos personal injury bankruptcy trust for any alieged
asbestos related injury, and you retained counsel to represent you regarding this claim, please

state the attorney, firm name, address and telephone number.

Datee: January{4, 2007 MCNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTI
PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

fomas ©. ome
‘Patrick L. Moore

Deborah M. D. Gustafson

Attomneys for Defendant

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peerless Pump.

Company

KASFLUOTAIDiscoverysi set one Pl.doe

5
ENDANT S?ERLING FLUID SYSTEMS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF ~ SET ONEEXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT D1 | THOMAS E. PFALZER (State Bar No. 85261)
PATRICK L. MOORE (State Bar No. 84909)

2 | DEBORAH M. D. GUSTAFSON (State Bar No. 215315)
McNamara, Dope, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY,

3 | PEALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

12:1 Newell Avenue

4 | Post Office Box 5288

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

5 | Teiephone: (925) 939-5330

Facsimile: (925) 939-0203

6
§ Attorneys for Defendant

3 7 | Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peerless Pump

= Company

= 8

5

2 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

“

a 10 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

8 il

g 12 | JAMES RODAMER and NANCY Case No. CGC06-456569

2. RODAMER,

Ez 13 DEFENDANT STERLING FLUID

ze Piaintiff, SYSTEMS (USA), LLC FKA PEERLESS
ge 4 PUMP REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
FE vs. TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONE (PERSONAL
5 1s INJURY)

ag A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al.,

zERE 16 Action Filed: 9/29/2006

cone Defendant,

g2 17

g* 18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant Stesling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peerless
8 19 Pump Company

g 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff James Rodamer

= 2 SET NUMBER: ONE

z 2 Defendant Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, tka Peerless Pump Company (hereinafter
2

23 | “Sterling Fluid Systems”), requests that plaintiff proéuce the following documents pursuant to
24 | California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.

25 Copies of the items pray be maiied to the law firm of McNamara, Dadge, Ney, Beatty,
26 | Slattery, Pfalzer, Borges & Brothers LLP, [211 Newell Avenuc, Walnut Creos, California 94596
27 | along with any reasonable bill for the cost of reproduction.

2s | uw

DEFENDANT STERLING FLJID SYSTEMS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONEORKEYS AT LAW
(525) 939.5330

McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, RORGES & BROTHERS LLP.
TELEPHONE

Request No. |
ALL DOCUMENTS which support YOUR claim that you were exposed to respirable

asbestos fibers from a product which Ster‘ing Fluid Systems made.

"DOCUMENTS" shall refer to all manually, mechanically or electronically written or
recorded audio or visual materials and computer files known to piaintiff, including but not limited
to Gatabases, electronic mail messages, financial data, spreadsheets, accounting system
information, indices of computer records, correspondence, memoranda, telegrams, notations,
records, reccipts, invoices, bills, purchase orders, sales records, delivery records, shipping

submittal and

manifests, bics, contacts, contract logs, cztalogs, specifications, approved materia

change orders, as-built spocifications, applications, specifications, blueprints, plans, diagrams,
indexes, computer-stored records, computer record indexes, microfilms, microfiche, warranties,
guarantees, calendars, diaries, videotapes, photographs, tape recordings, asbestos surveys,
asbestos sample testing reports, abatement reports, books, brochures, safety manuals, union
reguiations, company regulations, depositions, trial testimony, trial exhibits, employment records,
intemal inspection reports, jurisdictional reports, extemal inspection reports, correspondence
between plain‘if?'s employer and plaintiff, and statements. For purposes of these interrogatories,

the terms “YOU” or “YOUR” includes you, your agents, your employees, your attorneys,

investigators, and anyone else acting on your behalf.
Request No. 2:

ALL DOCUMENTS which support YOUR claim that you were exposed to respirable
asbestos fibers from a product which was incorporated into an Sterling Fluid Systems made
product.

Request No.

ALI. DOCUMENTS which support YOUR claim that you were exposed to respirable
asbestos fibers from a product which Sterling Fluid Systems distributed, specified for usc. or
which was necessitated by the design of the made product.

Request No. 4:
The claim form and support documents filed with any claim that was submitted by YOU

2

DEFENDANT STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONEjONE (925) 939-5930,

McNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY. SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP.
TORNEYS AT LAW

to any asbestos personal injary bankruptcy trust for ary alleged asbestos related injury.
Request No. 5:

ALL DOCUMENTS identified in the plaintiff's responses to special interrogatories, set |
one, propounded by defendant Sterling Fluid Systems.

Dated: January‘, 2007 McNaMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATE
PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP

an

jomas E, Pfalzer
Patrick T.. Moore
Deborah M. D. Gustafson
Attorneys for Defendant
Sterling Fiuid Systems (USA), LLC, fka Peeriess Pump |
Company i

KASPLAOTADiscoveryuto Pl set one. doe

3

DEFENDANT STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF - SET ONE,EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT EDISC-004

[ RITORREY Gi RTT WHTRSUT ATTGRRET flame: Sie tao asa
heborah M.D. Gustafson [State Bar No.

225315)

incNamara, Dodge, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, et al
1711 Neweil Avenue
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
0
prromevronimane) Sterling ms {USA}, LLC

‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco

SHORT TITLE OF CASE: Rodamer v. A.W. Chesterten Co.,

Answering Partly: Plaintiff! James Rodamer
SetNo: One

FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL, CAF NUMBER

Asking Party: Sterling Fluid Systems (USK, LLC

-06-458589

Sect Wnstructions to all Baios
(a) Inienogetones are wien questions prepares by e party
{San ctor thal ae son! lo ary afer party nthe acton fo be
Shawoted under oatn. The intorogatres oolow ae erm
Immagalotos approved fer Use nc cases.

{b) For time limitations, requirements for service on other
partes, and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections
2030.010-2030.410 and the casas construing those sections.

{c) These form inte-rogatories do not change existing law
relating to interrogateries nor do they affect an answering
party's right fo asserl any priviioge or make any abjection.

‘Sec.2. Instructions to the Asking Party

(a) These interrogatories are designe€ for options’ use by
parties in unlimited civi cases where the amount demanded
exceeds $25,000. Separate interrogatories, Form
intezrogatories—Limted Civil Cases (Economic Ligation)
(form D:SC-004), which have no subparts, are designed for
Use in limited civil cases where the amount demanded is,
$25,000 or less; however, those interrogatories may also be
‘used in uniimited civil cases

{b) Check the box next to each interrogatory that you want
the answering party to answer, Use cate in choosing those
interogatories that are applicable to the case.

(0) You may insrt you own dfn of INGIDENT i

conduct or 9 tore of events uring over a period of time.
(d}_ The interrogatories in section 16.9, Defendant's
Concentions—Personal injury, should net be used
defendant has had @ reasonable opportunity te cenduct an
investigation or discovery of plairiif’s injuries an¢ damages,
(e} Additional interrogatories mey be attached.

Sec. 3, Instructions fo the Answering Party

(a) An answer or other appropriste response musi be

giver. to each interrogatory checked by the asking party.

() As a general rule, within 30 days after you are served
with these interrogatories, you must serve your responses on
the esking party and serve copies of your responses on all
other parties to the action who have appeared. See Code of
Civil Procedure sections 2030.260-2030.270 for details

infornation possessed by your sttomeys or agents, oats
If ar: interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it
to the extent possible.

{d) _ you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully
answer an interrogatory, Say so, but make 2 reasonable and
ood faith effort to get the information ny asking other persons
of organizations, un‘ess the information is equally avaiabie to
the asking party,
(e)__ Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by
referng to a document, the document may be attached as an
oxhibit io the response and referred to in the response. If the
document nas more than one page, refer to the page and
section where the answer to the inlerrogatory can be found
(f) Whenever an address and telephone numper for the
same person are requested in more than one interrogatory,
you are requires to furnish them in answering only the first
interrogatory asking for that information.
(9) _ you are asserting 2 privilege or making an objection to
an interrogatory, you must specifically assert the privilege or
state the cbjection in your written response.
(h) Your answers te these interrogatories must be verified,
dated, and signed. You may wish to use the following form at
the end of your answers

/ deciere under penalty of perjury under the ‘ews of the
State of Catifornia thal the foregoing answers are true and
correct.

——isira ‘Sam
Sec. 4. Definitions

Words in BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these in:errogatories
are defined as follows:
(a) (Check one of the following):
(1) INCIDENT includes the crcumstances and
events surrourding the alleged accident, injury, or
other occurrence or breach of contract avving rise to
this action or proceeding. Page tof

Fam hogs Opt Use
“soa Conn of Cause
iS pace Jowsry 12007

FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL

Tegal cacao tes
Soldtigns ssospimen se 2076
va Dus(2) INCIDENT means (insert your definition here or
on separate, attacned sheet labeled "Sec.
4(a(2)")

(©) YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF
includes you, your agents, your employees, your insurance
‘companies, their agents, their empioyees, your attorneys, your
accountants, your investigators, ard anyone e'se acting on your
behalf.

{c} PERSON includes a natural person, fir, association,
‘organization, partnership, business, trust, limited liability
‘company, corporaticn, or public entity.

{¢) DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence
Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of
handwating, typeariting, printing, chatostats, photographs,
clectronicaily stored information, and every other means ot
recording upon any tangible thrig and form of communicating
oF representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or
symbols, or combinations of thes.

ie) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER includes any PERSON
referred to in Code of Civil Procedure section 867.7()3).

() ADDRESS means the street address, inciuding the city.
state, and zip code.

Sec. §. interrogatories

The following interrogatories have been approved by the
Judicial Council under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033-710:

CONTENTS

1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These interrogatories
2.0 General Beckground Infomatio