Motion,Ex Parte: LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                |
|
|

nN

oD ew ND UH FF Ww

28
FBE&M

Lae MERRITT PLAZA
1996 HARRISON, STREET
Suarevemcrs Foon
DaKLAND GA o1ZESHE
Prine s10.446.8131

EUGENE BROWN, JR. (SBN: 079824)
AMEE A. MIKACICH (SBN: 146814)

MICHELLE M. CAMMARATA (SBN: 250258) ELECTRONICALLY
FILICE BROWN EASSA & MCLEOD LLP FILED
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 Superior Court of Californk
Oakland, California 94612-3520 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (510) 444-3131 . JUN 23 2010

Facsimile: (510) 839-7940
acsimile: (510) Clerk of the Court

BY: VANESSA WU
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

OAKFABCO, INC,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA, CASE NO. CGC 07-274230

DECLARATION OF MICHELLE M.

Plaintiff, CAMMARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, Date: September 9, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 220, Hon. Harold Kahn
Trial Date: October 12, 2010
Defendants. Complaint Filed: June 6, 2007

1, Michelle M. Cammarata, declare that:

1 IT am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
California and am an associate at the law firm of Filice Brown Eassa & McLeod LLP, counsel for
Oakfabco, Inc. (hereinafter “Oakfabco”).

2. Plaintiffs filed this asbestos related personal injury action on June 6, 2007, against
several defendants, including Oakfabco. This fact is evidenced by relevant portions of the
Complaint, a copy of which is attached to the Request for Judicial Notice, In the Complaint,

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, including Oakfabco, were involved in the manufacture, sale,

04473 34004 MMT 632258.1

DECLARATION OF MICHELLE M, CAMMARATA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT27

28
FBE&M

LAKE MEARETT PEATA,
1599 Hawnisen Sma
[BreHEFAERTTHI FLOR
OAKLAND CA 946 2aSAT
PRONE SEO4HLSENE

supply, or installation of asbestos containing products. However, that claim is erroneously stated
against Oakfabco since Oakfabco came into existence in about 1987, and has not manufactured,
sold or supplied any products. These facts are evidence by relevant portions of the Deposition of
William C. Stein taken on December 8, 1994 and March 3, 1995, page 5, lines 20-22, page 21
lines 3-12, page 5 lines 1-9, 16-18, page 9 lines 14-24; which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and

incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.

3. May 30, 2008, counsel to Oakfabco propounded Special Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents to Plaintiff. These facts are evidenced by relevant portions of
Oakfabco’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, which is. attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. These facts are evidenced by relevant
portions of Oakfabco’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. Oakfabco’s
Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were sufficiently
comprehensive and sought all information pertaining to whether their products caused and/or
contributed to Plaintiff's alleged exposure. These facts are evidenced by relevant portions of
Oakfabco’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. These facts are evidenced by relevant
portions of Oakfabco’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. In Response
to Oakfabco’s Discovery, Plaintiff indicates that he worked on and around Kewanee boilers at
Shell Oil in Martinez, Standard Oil in Richmond, and Union Oil in Rodeo, and valves associated
with Oakfabco boilers. These facts are evidenced by relevant portions of Plaintiffs’ Responses to
Oakfabco’s Special Interrogatories, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated
herein by reference as though fully set forth. These facts are evidenced by relevant portions of
Plaintiffs’ Response to Oakfabco’s Request for Production of Documents, which is attached

hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. Plaintiff was

~2- 04473 34004 MMT 632258.128
FBE&M

LAKE MERRITE PLXtA

unable to provide any specific information pertaining to his work on or around Kewanee and
Oakfabco boilers.

4, At deposition Plaintiff testified that he did not work with, around, or was exposed to
any product manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by Oakfabco. These facts are
evidenced by relevant portions of the transcript of the deposition of Louis Castagna taken on
April 9, 2009 at page 1096 lines 13-14, 19-21, page 1097 lines 23-25, page 1098 lines 5-9; which
is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
Plaintiff was unable to identify any witnesses or documents that could provide more information
as to whether he worked with, around, or was exposed to any product manufactured, sold,
supplied, and/or distributed by Oakfabco. These facts are evidenced by relevant portions of the
transcript of the deposition of Louis Castagna taken on April 9, 2009 at page 1096 lines 25, page
1097 lines 1-3, 6, page 1098 lines 11-14, 16-18; which is attached hereto as Exhibit F and
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.

5. Plaintiff did not recall whether he worked with or around or was exposed to any
products manufactured, sold supplied, and/or distributed by Kewanee Boiler Corporation. These
facts are evidenced by relevant portions of the transcript of the deposition of Louis Castagna
taken on April 9, 2009 at page 1097 lines 8-10, 12, page 1098 lines 21-25, page 1099 lines 2-6;
which is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set
forth. Plaintiff was unable to identify any witnesses or documents that could provide more
information as to whether he worked on, around, or was exposed to a product manufactured, sold,
supplied, and/or distributed by Kewanee Boiler Corporation. These facts are evidenced by
relevant portions of the transcript of the deposition of Louis Castagna taken on April 9, 2009 at
page 1097 lines 14-18, 20-2, page 1099 lines 8-13, 15-18; which is attached hereto as Exhibit F

and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.

W

Ww

~3- 04473 34004 MMT 632258.11 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

2 || foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this june 3° 2010 in Oakland, California.

duh lle Py, Caumaer

MICHELLE M. CAMMARATA

FBREG&M ~4- 04473 34004 MMT 632258.1

3999 Finan
' na

OsgLanD C4 94682. S5aT
PONE SI@AH4.S131EXHIBIT Aby

. eo —— sae
CT. :

CSR No.

“y | SUPERIOR ‘COURT OF THE STATE OF. CALIFORNEA
2h “COUNTY OF: gan’ ‘FRANCISCO ”
3 --+000--~- :
4 .
5 | FLORENCE WIENEOLZ; et al., }-
. 6] plaintifts, - } .
7 vs. * No: 938709
8 ABEK CORPORATION, et al. oo }
a Defendants. - :
. 10) _ CERT Ie C0 PY
aa] a
‘12 /
as], ' ;ELEPHONIC DBPOSETION OF
‘aah. ‘wEEDIAM Cc. STEIN
as VOLUME I, PAGES 1 - °74
“a6  anuxeday, Decembér .B, 1994
17]: , -
38]
ry
20
aa]
2al
23]
“galReported by: JANICE A. BADASCI
26 6367, cM, CRR-oO

} .

wise

15,

. 1 r

j|where you are?: °

A. Yes... *
“9. : and my understanding is there iis noone else-in
‘the room? :
oa That is correct.
‘g. New, would you go ahead and please. state your
, nang. aid -dpell. it for the record. : ae oe

‘Now, Ifm on this end- I just want to state what

the cixcumstances here for the record,

-I'm on this end in Novato; california, with a

court reporter, who,is' taking down everything that is said|.

amoaig us here today.

with your attorney.: : . .
‘Just. so we're, clear, could you tell me exactly:

A. our’ address is 210 West 22nd Street in Oak
Brook, ‘two words, Oak’. Brook, Illinois, ‘e0521.
Q°.- and is’ that where you are ° right new, Mr. Stein?
oA, Yes.

+. And Bugene Brown, Jr., your attorney, is: there

with you; correct? uy

A _ My name ‘ig William <<; Stein, s- t-e-ien.

Q-. And: the court reporter just. swore you in,
pwneteby you raised your wight hand and swore ‘to tell the

truth:

“and my understanding is that you are in IllinoilaA. sttaybe ra, better say that Industeial steam
operates as a division of oakEubeo.

Q. Now, you

Ae Yes.
2.

Q. and bow ong have you. nad that popition? ‘

Ave 5 think ‘two yeara.

- g,' pid you work saa batee ttt

AL. ¥ess.
oo

Q.. And: “What: Was: your. position then? :

A. | Treasurer.
een cent
Q. , And how ‘long had, you -heen treasurer? ,

A. (Of Oaktabed, gince. 1988, i believe.

MR, BROWN?" So you were the: treasurer fron 1988.

to 19927.
THE WITNESS; And still am.
MR. BROWN: Okay. Lf

MR. HANLEY: Q. ‘So you've been treasurer since

44988 until new, and pregident for about the last two

yeats?
aA, Yes. Approximately.
> Q. and Oak£abco originally incorporated in 1987..
Is that correct? , : ‘ uo ‘
A. No, :
Q. When. did Oakfabco originally incorporate?

‘A. 1970, Maybe f don't understand your question.
: , 2

‘re. currently the president ‘of Cakfabco? .é
*

‘ ABEX CORFORATION,, et aler

SUPERIOR. COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
. IN AND’ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

FLORENCE frgnuoLe, et.al.,
. ‘ Plaintifte,

ve. No. 938709

Defendants.

The deposition of WILDIAN STEIN,
erp
called for: vexamination by the plaintiffs, taken

before Deborah L. O'Connor, Ge Ss. Rey 3B Notary Public
in and for the county. of DuFage, ‘State of tllinois,

taken at 210 West Zand ‘street, Oak Brook; Illinois, .

_on the zd day of Harch 1995. at. the hour of

“9300 asm.

ms EAs REPORTING (312) 41979292Boal a we ok we Ne

We spent some time talking o

about a number of ‘aifterent: corporations, some

parent ontitics and some holding companies, some

subsidiaries, and what Iwould Like to get from you

is your: understanding ino general sense and

briefly of. ‘the rélationship between several

companies, west Alloy, Stanwood, Industrial Steam,

and’ Gakfabco and Kewanee Boiler, Af that's a-

question ‘that you can anewer; rather than me going

through and asking ‘a niklion questions about when.

something WES sold. - and you recall we. went | over a

‘Lot. of that and we had a Lot. of details and I. think

what. we're nissing perhaps is just a general
overview of the relationship between these
different. companies,

go my question is, can you give

ime a general overview of. the relationship between

these companies? And. I'll indicate them again if
eon

you like. . ‘

MS. MEKACICH Let me just object, to

the question as calling for a narrative and I think

“it also assumes facts ‘that, aren't in evidence to

the extent that you' re asking for a relationship

that may not exist. with those objections, — go

“SUNT REPORTING (312) 419-9292_this on the side, Before 1970 it was all over the

oto Ub oe & oN oe

_ place: At. this point it was just in Kewanee. It

had Buktalo;- New York, Detroit, and sO ONn,, all
kinds of offices: -and facilities.
Q. Préor to 19707 |
Ae. Yes. |
Ge) coKay.”

“Re then gontinuing to , address your question,

Kewanee oiler Corporation bought | the “assets --

certain assets inoluding the ‘business of Thdustrial

. Steam Company, Inc., I think it was galled, ain

December; 1976, and it, was ‘and is'-- well, was

‘operated: asa division of Kewanee Boiler

a

‘Gérporation. When the assets were sold -~- when the.

assets. ‘of Kewanee Boiler Corporation were ‘sold

‘puretant to court -- the assets in the business” in

January, “1987, “it was -- the-name, of course, was

, valuable. to. the purchaser; Kewanee has | very

important name in that business, and we were

required to change’ the name because the. name wap.

sold as oné of the assets, And at that point ve

ghanged the name: to Oakfabeo, Inc., TMade-up name.

“Autd, of, course, “the only operating entity was

) Industrial steam at, that point.

Dae REPORTING (312) 419-9292°EXHIBIT B1 || BUGENE BROWN, JR. (SBN: 079824)
AMEE A. MIKACICH (SBN: 146814)
2 || LIZA C. MILANES (SBN: 242582)
FILICE BROWN EASSA & McLEOD LLP
3 || 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612
| Tel: (510) 444-3131

Fax: (510) 839-7940

4
5

Attorneys for Defendant
6 || OAKFABCO, INC.
7
8
9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

10
11
LOUIS CASTAGNA, ) CASE NO. CGC 07-274230
12 )
Plaintiff, ) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO
13 ) LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE
v. )
14 )
| 3 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), )
)
Defendants. )
16 j
)
17

18 || PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT OAKFABCO, INC.
19 ||, RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF LOUIS CASTAGNA

20 || SET NO.: ONE

21 COMES NOW, OAKFABCO, INC., and hereby requests that Plaintiff LOUIS

22 || CASTAGNA answer under oath pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030 and § 2030.010, ef seq., within thirty
23 || (30) days of receipt, the following interrogatories:

24 || INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

25 IDENTIFY each product to which YOU CLAIM that OAKFABCO, INC. caused YOU to
26 || be EXPOSED.

27 “YOU” and “YOUR” shall refer to Plaintiff LOUIS CASTAGNA, his attorneys, agents,
28 investigators, and any other representative working on his behalf.

FBE&M : -1-

tase ones Piaza

‘vente toon SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE

EIGHTEENTH FLOOR
ARLAND CA 94612-3541 04473 34004 LCM 586909.1FBE&M

‘LAKE MERRITT PLAZA
999 HARIUSON STREET
‘BoerresaTs FLOOR

‘ABLAND CA 94612-3541

“OAKFABCO, INC.” shall include, for purposes of discovery, Kewanee Boiler
Corporation.

“EXPOSED” shall mean in proximity to, in contact with, or to breathe respirable asbestos
fibers. ‘

“IDENTIFY” shall mean to state that product name, common name, and manufacturer of
the product identified.

“CLAIM” shall refer to any and all claims made by plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint
against OAKFABCO, INC., including but not limited to all allegations that OAKFABCO, INC.
engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or supplying asbestos containing products.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

For each product IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 1, please state the
LOCATION of EXPOSURE.

“LOCATION” shall mean the premises name, street address, city, state, zip code, and
telephone number of each premises identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

For each product IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 1, please specify
the DATE of EXPOSURE.

“DATE” shall mean the day(s), month(s), and year(s).

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

For each product IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 1, please state all
facts which support YOUR contention that OAKFABCO, INC. caused YOU to be EXPOSED to
asbestos-containing products.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

IDENTIFY all persons who observed OAKFABCO, INC. cause YOU to be exposed to
asbestos-containing products.

“IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the person’s name, mailing address, street address, and
telephone number.

if
2.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE
04473 34004 LCM 5869091FBE&M

‘Lagi Mages Plaza
999 HARRISON STRERT
TIGHTARNTH FLooR,

ARLAND CA 9469203541

In WwW

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENT(S) that support YOUR contention that OAKFABCO, INC.
caused YOU to be EXPOSED to asbestos-containing products.

“DOCUMENT(S)” shall mean all writings as defined by Evidence Code § 250, ef seq., and
include the original and any copy of any document, including but not limited to correspondence,
memoranda, notes, research, notations, diaries, work records, work orders, purchase orders,
invoices, photographs, reports, logos, or any other writings in YOUR possession.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

IDENTIFY all asbestos bankruptcy trusts to which YOU have filed a claim for
compensation. “IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the name, mailing address, street address, and
telephone number of the asbestos bankruptcy trust.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

IDENTIFY all payments YOU have received from an asbestos bankruptcy trust.
“IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the dollar amount, the date of receipt, and the name of the
asbestos bankruptcy trust from which YOU received the payment. :

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

IDENTIFY all false statements YOU claim OAKFABCO, INC. MADE to YOU.

“IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the content of each false statement, the name of the person
who MADE the statement, the manner of publication of each false statement, including the title of
‘any DOCUMENT in which the false statement was MADE, and the date on which the false
statement was MADE. “MADE” shall mean to state verbally or to state in writing.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

IDENTIFY all false statements YOU claim were MADE to YOUR employer(s) by
OAKFABCO, INC.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

IDENTIFY all persons who observed OAKFABCO, INC. make false statements to YOU.

fi

i
-3-

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE
04473 34004 LCM 586909.1eo eC NI DR Rh FB BY |

NY N NR NH NN NN DQ ee
oN DAD A BF 68 8S fF SG GB we DR H FF WN KF SD

FBE&M

LAKE MERRITT PLAZA
1999 HARRISON STREET
EIGHTEENTH FLOOR

AKLAND CA 94612-3541

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that YOU claim evidence that OAKFABCO, INC. made

false statements to YOU.

Dated: May 28, 2008 FILICE BROWN EASSA & McLEOD LLP

we Oy Chale

EUGENE BROWN, JR.
AMEE A. MIKACICH
LIZA C. MILANES
Attorneys for Defendant
OAKFABCO, INC.

4.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE
04473 34004 LCM 586909.1EXHIBIT Com YN DA HM PF WHR =

mW MW NY N NN NN Be BR Re
aA vA & YB NY fF BD obo we NA DH F&F BW NH KF

27

28
FBE&M

Sake MERRITT pLaza
1999 Harnasow Seamer
mea TERT FLOUR
GaRLAND CA 94612-3541
PHON SLO4s4.a231

EUGENE BROWN, JR. (SBN: 079824)
AMEE A, MIKACICH (SBN: 146814)

LIZA C. MILANES (SBN: 242582)

FILICE BROWN EASSA & McLEOD LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Tel: (510) 444-3131

Fax: (510) 839-7940

Attorneys for Defendant
OAKFABCO, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA, CASE NO. CGC 07-274230

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO LOUIS CASTAGNA,
SET ONE

Plaintiff,
v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP),

Defendants.

eee

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT OAKFABCO, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF LOUIS CASTAGNA
SET NO.: ONE

COMES NOW, OAKFABCO, INC., and hereby requests that Plaintiff LOUIS
CASTAGNA answer under oath, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil
Procedure, §§ 2031, ef seq., within thirty days of receipt, the following requests for production of
documents. OAKFABCO, INC. further requests that plaintiff produce documents responsive to
this request at the law firm of Filice Brown Eassa & McLeod LLP, located at 1999 Harrison
Street, Suite 1800, Oakland, California 94612.
//

-l- 04473 34004 LCM 5869111

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE1 | DEFINITIONS
2 The term “DOCUMENTS” shall refer to all writings as defined in California Evidence

3 | Code § 250, and include the original and any copy of any documents, including but not limited to
correspondence, memoranda, notes, research, notations, diaries, work records, photographs,

reports, logs, or any other writings in your possession.

4
5
6 The term “YOU” and “YOUR” shall refer to Plaintiff LOUIS CASTAGNA, his attorneys,
7 | agents, investigators, and any other representatives working on his behalf.
8 The term “CLAIMS” shall refer to any and all claims made by Plaintiff as alleged in the
9 | Complaint against OAKFABCO, INC.,, including but not limited to all allegations that
10 || OAKFABCO, INC. engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or supplying asbestos
11 | or asbestos-containing products.
12 The term “EXPOSED” and “EXPOSURE” shall mean in proximity to, in contact with,
13 | and/or to breathe respirable asbestos fibers.
14 The term “IDENTIFY”, when referring to a location, shall mean to state the street address,
15 |. city, state, zip code, and telephone number of each location identified.
16 The term “IDENTIFY”, when referring to a date, shall refer to the day, month, and year.
17 The term “IDENTIFY”, when referring to persons, shal! mean to state the name, the

18 || current, or if not known, the most recent, street address, city, state, zip code, and telephone

19 | number of each person identified.
20 The term “OAKFABCO, INC.” includes Kewanee Boiler Corporation for purposes of

21 | these requests.

22 | REQUEST NO. 1:

23 Produce all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR CLAIMS against OAKFABCO, INC.
24 | REQUEST NO. 2:
25 Produce all DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the location(s) where YOUR EXPOSURE to

26 | OAKFABCO, INC. product(s) allegedly occurred.
27 | 77

28 | // r
FBE&:M -2- 04473 34004 LCM 5869111

eT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE

oe Manuasors Sane
EnulersenTa FLOOR

‘ORLAnD EA 9612.3547
Pons $10,934.81851 | REQUEST NO, 3:
Produce all DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the employer(s) for whom YOU worked

2
3 | when YOUR EXPOSURE to OAKFABCO, INC. product(s) allegedly occurred.
4 || REQUEST NO. 4: ,
5 Produce all DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the date(s) on which YOU were allegedly
6 | EXPOSED as a result of the conduct of OAKFABCO, INC.

7 | REQUEST NO. 5:

8 Produce all DOCUMENTS which refer to any asbestos-containing OAKFABCO, INC.

9 || product(s) to which YOU claim YOU were EXPOSED.

10 | REQUEST NO. 6:

11 Produce all DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY any and all persons who observed

12 | OAKFABCO, INC. cause YOU to be EXPOSED to asbestos,

13 | REQUEST NO. 7:

14 Produce all DOCUMENTS which relate to claims that YOU have filed with an asbestos
15 bankruptcy trust.

16 | REQUEST NO. 8:

17 Produce all DOCUMENTS which relate to payments YOU have received from an

18 || asbestos bankruptcy trust.

19 || REQUEST NO. 9:

20 Produce all DOCUMENTS that relate to false statements YOU claim OAKFABCO, INC.
21 | MADE to YOU.

22 “MADE” shall mean to state verbally or to state in writing.
23 | REQUEST NO. 10:
24 Produce all DOCUMENTS that relate to false statements YOU claim were MADE to

25 | YOUR employer(s) by OAKFABCO, INC.
26 | REQUEST NO. 11:
27 Produce all DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY persons who observed OAKFABCO, INC.

28 || make false statements to YOU. ;
FBREG&M -3- | 04473 34004 LOM 5869111

£909 HaRnuson Staley

LAK MERRITT PENZA REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONE

rotetaeNy Foo
DAKLAKD EA 6123581
buowe st0.ass.srayowe IN DAW

10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
FBE&M

Lake MORRITT MLAZA,
1999 Hapasson State
LBIGDEE ENTE FLOOR
OASLAND C8 94412-5551
Prion S10.444.509¢

REQUEST NO. 12:
Produce all DOCUMENTS that YOU claim as evidence that OAKFABCO, INC. made

false statements to YOU.

Dated: May 28, 2008 FILICE BROWN EASSA & MCLEOD LLP

we Ol CMe

EUGENE WIN, JR.
AMEE A. MIKACICH
LIZA C. MILANES
Attorneys for Defendant
OAKFABCO, INC.

;
-4- , 04473 34004 LCM 586911.1

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO LOUIS CASTAGNA, SET ONEB&eM

(GRRITT PLAZA
‘ursont STR
NTH FLOOR,
a 94sr2.3541
S143

Oo Oe YW KH HA BRB WN =

Rw oN NN YN N KR NY Be ew oe Be se eB Se Be Be
ea AA FB oH fF FS De HDA BBW NH KH ST

PROOF OF SERVICE

LOUIS CASTAGNA vy. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS
(OAKFABCO, INC.)
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. CGC 07-274230

I, MARIE HERNANDEZ, hereby declare:

1 am acitizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not a party to the within action.

Iam employed in the County of Alameda; my business address is Lake Merritt Plaza, 1999
Harrison Street, Eighteenth Floor, Oakland, CA 94612-3541.

On the date listed below, 1 served the within:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO LOUIS CASTAGNA

on all parties in this action, as addressed below, by causing a true copy thereof to be distributed as

follows:

Brayton Purcell Berry & Berry

222 Rush Landing Road 2930 Lakeshore Avenue

P. O. Box 6169 P.O. Box 16070

Novato, CA 94948-6169 - Oakland, CA 94610

ij BY MAIL: [am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence

for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal service on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit for mailing in affidavit.

- BY HAND DELIVERY: 1 caused such envelope, to be hand delivered to the stated parties.

VIA FACSIMILE: I caused such documents to be transmitted via fax to the stated parties at their
respective facsimile numbers,

VIA EXPRESS CARRIER: 1 caused such documents to be collected by an agent for
to be delivered to the offices of the stated parties.

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

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on May 30, 2008, at Oakland, California.

MARIE HERNANDEZ dD

09821 33185 MHERNANDEZ 507080.01
Z

-l-
04473 34004 MHERNANDEZ $87081.1
PROOF OF SERVICEEXHIBIT DBRAYTON PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

CO YD wm BW Ye

10

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436
SARAH K. ISAACS, ESQ., SB. #227286
BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA,
Plaintiff,

ASBESTOS
No. 274230

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT OAKFABCO, INC.’S
SPECIALLY PREPARED
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

VS.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

ee

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant OAKFABCO, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff LOUIS CASTAGNA
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Plaintiff LOUIS CASTAGNA, objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use
of undefined terms including, but not limited to, “product” and “caused.” Subject to, and
without waiving, the foregoing objection, laintiff responds as follows: Kewanee boilers.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are

continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and
work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls
for legal conclusions. Plaintiff further objects to this Intetrogatory on the grounds that it calls
for expert opinions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is properly
the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. §. 2034. Plaintiff
further objects on the grounds, and to the extent that this Interrogatory seeks information
equally available to, and already provided to, defendant in Standard Asbestos Case
Tnterrogatories and other employment documents served on Designated Defense Counsel
pursuant to General Order No. 41 and is therefore harassing, burdensome, oppressive and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

if

‘KAlnjured\102298\rog-rsp OAKFAB.wpd 1 7 skiCamo NY DA BF WN &

10

Subject to and without waiving said objections, as plaintiff understands the question,
plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff worked on and around KEWANEE boilers throughout his career. Plaintiff was
in close proximity to the boilermakers, who performed work inside the boiler and disturbed
asbestos containing material. Plaintiff believes he worked around KEWANEE boilers at the
following sites, including but not limited to Shell Oil, Martinez, CA: Standard Oil, Richmond,
CA Union Oil, Rodeo/Oleum, CA: Plaintiff also personally worked on valves associated with
OAKFABCO boilers. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation
and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and
work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls
for legal conclusions. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls
for expert opinions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is properly
the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff
further objects on the grounds, and to the extent that this Interrogato seeks information
equally available to, and already provided to, defendant in Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories and other employment documents served on Designated Defense Counsel
pursuant to General Order No. 41 and is therefore harassing, burdensome, oppressive and not
teasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
waiving said objections, as plaintiff understands the question, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference his Response to Interrogatory 2 above.
Plaintiff cannot be more specific as to date at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
rounds that it is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that
it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-product
doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for legal
conclusions. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for expert
opinions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is properly the
subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034. Plaintiff
further objects on the grounds, and to the extent that this Interrogatory seeks information
equally available to, and already provided to, defendant in Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories and other employment documents seryed on Designated Defense Counsel
pursuant to General Order No. 41 and is therefore harassing, burdensome, oppressive and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
waiving said gbjections. as plaintiff understands the question, plaintiff responds as follows:

Per O. ‘ABCO, INC.’s Responses to General Order 129 Interrogatories, defendant
purchased an interest in Kewanee Boiler Corporation in 1975 and Kewance Boiler Corporation
may have purchased and used asbestos-containing gaskets and rope in its boilers up until the
year 1972. As successor-in-interest to Kewanee Boiler Corporation, OAKFABCO, INC. is
liable for plaintiff’s asbestos exposure resulting from the asbestos-containing materials used in
KEWANEE boilers. Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products that were
manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed and/or specified by KEWANEE while he performed
tepair work to said boilers. Plaintiff was exposed during the course of installation as he
disturbed internal gaskets, and lined the firebox with a coating of asbestos-containing material,
which came in sacks of dry powder which plaintiff helped to mix and apply. Plaintiff was
further exposed by working in close proximity to other who on KEWANEE boilers and.
serviced the interiors, handling and otherwise disturbing defendant's asbestos-containing
products in his proximity. Plaintiff breathed the air and dust that had been generated by the

andling and disturbance of these products. Plaintiff did not wear breathing protection, nor was
he advised to do so.

KMajured\102298\og-rsp OAKFAB.wpd 2 i skiDefendant knew that asbestos-containing products such as those supplied to plaintiff's
employers or contractors at plaintiff's jobsites, would be handled, disturbed and manipulated by
workers, resulting in the release of airborne asbestos fibers, and that through such foreseeable
use and/or handling, plaintitt would be exposed to such asbestos fibers. As a manufacturer,
supplier and/or distributor of asbestos-containing products, defendant had a duty to wam
consumers of dangers inherent in said products, as well as other duties all of which were
breached by defendant. As a proximate result of defendant's breach of its duties, plaintiff
sustained injury. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and
discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms
including, but not limited to, “observed” and “cause.” Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks the premature disclosure of trial witnesses, other than
experts, and is therefore in violation of the attorney work-product doctrine. City of Long Beach
vy. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65.

Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objection, plaintiff currently identifies
the following: Current and/or former employees, agents, officers of KEWANEE, OAKFABCO
whose names are currently unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiff further identifies Mike Hemandez,
address currently unknown; James Saathoff, c/o Brayton%*Purcell LLP; Doyle Williams,
address currently unknown; Ed Wetison, deceased; Ed Russell, address currently unknown; and
Larry Blevins, Concord, California; Thomas McCollum, c/o Brayton Purcell; James P. Kearney,
deceased, Kenneth W. Norris, deceased. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this
Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds, and to the extent, that it seeks documents protected by the Attorney-Client privilege
and/or the Attorney Work-Product Doctrine. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds, and to the
extent, that this Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of documents within the
possession of plaintiff's retained expert consultants in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.210. Plaintiff
further objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory is overly broad, vague and ambiguous,
particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms including, but not limited to, “caused.”
Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing objections, plaintiff currently identifies the
following documents:

Plaintiff identifies his Complaint for Personal Injury in this case, all exhibits attached
thereto and all documents incorporated therein by reference, including the Brayton¢*Purcell
LLP Master Complaint. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies his responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Sets
One and Two, previously produced to Designated Defense Counsel. Plaintiff believes
defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff also identifies his medical records and Social Security Records, previously
made available to defendant through coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry.

Plaintiff identifies all deposition transcripts and the exhibits attached thereto taken in
conjunction with this action. Deposition transcripts are equally available to defendant. Plaintiff
further identifics all depositions and exhibits attached thereto, taken in conjunction with the
instant action.

. Plaintiff further identifies OAKFABCO, INC.’s Supplemental/Amended Responses to
San Francisco General Order No. 129 Interrogatories in Case No. 828684 In Re: Complex
Asbestos Litigation, dated January 30, 2007.

Plaintiff further identifies the transcript and all exhibits attached thereto of the
deposition and/or trial testimony of defendant’s representatives, agents, managing agents,
officers, directors, employees, Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and/or Custodian(s) of Records,
including but not limited to that of William Stein, taken in Florence Weinholz v. Abex
Corporation, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 938709 on December 8,
1994 and on March 3, 1995; in Mordhorst v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., San Francisco

i
KAlnjured\102208vog-rsp OAKFAB.wpd 3 , skioO NDA RB YW Ye

RoR Roe Be BP eB eB Be eB
BXRRRERBRBEBSESEBSRRARDEBHES

County Superior Court Case No. 429884 on October 29, 2004; in Jacquelyn Bakken v. Asbestos
Defendants (BP), San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 430928 on December 20,
2005, and that of George Kasparian taken in Florence Weinholz v. Abex Corporation, et al.

San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 938709 on March 2, 1995.

Plaintiff also identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literature since the turn of the century, and have also been summatized in various publications.
Two texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of this literature are:

Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, Barry I. Castleman

Prentice-Hall Law and Business, 1990.

Sourcebook on Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and Engineering Aspects,
George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press

Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986.

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant's
review. Due to copyright laws, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these texts to defendant.
Plaintiff also identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated pursuant to California
Labor Code § 6400, et seq. and California Administrative Code under the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, including, but not limited to,
Title VUI, Group 9 (Control of Hazardous Substances) Article 81, Section 4150, 4104-4108,
and Threshold Limit Values as documented for asbestos and other toxic substances under
Appendix A, Table I of said Safety Orders.

Plaintiff also identifies NESHAP Asbestos Regulations (National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants) which are found at Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart M, published under the Federal Clean Air Act of
1970, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7412(b)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7412(b)(1)(B).

Plaintiff also identifies OSHA standards relating to asbestos, found at Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 29, Chapter 17, Section 1910, et seq.; and Title 8, Section 5208 of the
California OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos exposure.

Plaintiff further identifies all the papers, photographs, films, recordings, memoranda,
books, records, pamphlets, circulars, handbooks, manuals, periodicals, files, envelopes, notices,
instructions, transcripts, notes, telex messages, communications (including reports, notes,
notation and memoranda of telephone conversations and conferences, electronic mail, minutes,
transcriptions, correspondence, etc) writings, letters, telegrams, correspondence, notes of
meetings or of conversations either in writing or upon any mechanical or electronic devices,
notes, accountants’ statements or summaries, reports, invoices, canceled checks, check stubs
receipts, bank statements, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, payment records,
telephone bills in defendant.’s constructive possession, custody, care or control relating to
plaintiff and the jobsites where he worked, and/or KEWANEE equipment on said sites.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies all of the agreements and contracts between defendant
KEWANEE and any general contractor, sub-contractor and supplier who was present at any
jobsites where plaintiff worked.

Plaintiff further identifies all of the labeling and packaging materials for all of the
asbestos-containing materials used at jobsites where defendant KEWANER’s products were
present on plaintiff's jobsites. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery
are continuing.

Mt
“i
Mt

t
KAlnjuredh102298\wog-tsp OAKFAB.wpd 4 : skiCoQ A vA FWY

10

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action,
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogalery on the grounds that it is overly broad, insofar as it is not specific to
the instant action. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that defendant
improperly seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is protected under
California law pursuant to Evid. Code § 1152, Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still, et al. y.
Super. Ct. (Kauffman) (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 241, Covell v. Super. Ct. (Drasin) (1984)
159 Cal.App.3d 39, 43, and C&K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co. (1978) 23 Cal.3d
1. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that defendant improperly secks
private information protected from disclosure by the California Constitution, article f §1
Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Asbestos Claims Management Corporation

Babcock & Wilcox Company

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

Fibreboard Corporation

ELK. Porter

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Harbison-Walker Refractories Company

Owens Corning Fiberglas

United States Gypsum Company

W.R. Grace & Co.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Plaintiff objects to this Special Interrogatory on
the grounds that the information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action,
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, insofar as it is not specific to
the instant action. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that defendant
improperly seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is protected under
California law pursuant to Evid. Code § 1152, Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still, et al. v.
Super. Ct. (Kauffman) (1996) 54 Cal.App.4th 233, 241, Covell v. Super. Ct. (Drasin) (1984)
159 Cal.App.3d 39, 43, and C&K Engineering Contractors vy. Amber Steel Co. (1978) 23 Cal.3d
1. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that defendant improperly seeks
private information protected from disclosure by the California Constitution, article I § 1.
Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows: None.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms
including, but not limited to, “false” and “statements.” Subject to, and without waiving, the
foregoing objection, plaintiff responds as follows:
The products in question, for which defendant is legally responsible, were designed in

such a way as to expose consumers to a known carcinogen which caused/causes injury to

laintiff. Therefore, KEWANEE violated the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness

‘or a particular purpose, by falsely representing that said products and equipment were safe said
intended uses. See Dorman v. International Harvester Co. 46 Cal.App.3d 11, 120 Cal.Rptr. 516
(Cal.App.1975). Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as investigation and
discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms
including, but not limited to, “false” and “statements.” Subject to, and without waiving, the
foregoing objection, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by
reference the Response to Interrogatory 9 above. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this
Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

KAlnjured\102298\rog-rsp OAKEAB.wpd 5 , skiCo WWD rH PF WY

RB ee Be Be Be ee ek
Co ODO Mm HY DO RH BR YW BH OS

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of
undefined terms including, but not limited to, “false,” “statements” and “observed.” Subject to,
and without waiving, the foregoing objection, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to
and incorporates by reference the Response to Interrogatory 5 above. Plaintiff reserves the right
to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of
undefined terms including, but not limited to, “false,” “statements” and “evidence.” Subject to,
and without waiving, the foregoing objection, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers

to and incorporates by reference the Response to Interrogatory 6 above. Plaintiff reserves the
tight to supplement this Response as investigation and discovery are continuing.

Dated: boast VieQ BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP

” Sarat K. Isaacs di
Attomeys for Plaintiff

By.

f
KAInjured\102298\rog-rsp OAKPAB.wpd 6 , skiVERIFICATION TO FOLLOW

KAFORMS\VERIFVER2FOLW.WPD,

~

aA mam tT Mh OF OH

o
=

4
=~

nN
a

nt HM Oo Ee 8
Soe tet

s5¢1-868 (Sth)
6919°BP6>6 VINNOSTTVD ‘OLVAON
6919 XOROd
a¥Ou DNIGNYT ASNY 227
ANWILY SAINUOLLY
AT1 TIAA SNOLAVET

a onan
ae NN NN

tT Hon w
aN NN ANCoO IQ DU BW Ye

Pe ee Be eR ee eR
oD Be SD DOD A KR WH YY KF SG

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Tam employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 1324 Rand Street,
Petaluma, California 94954. .

On . AUG 0.5 2008 , I served the within:

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT OAKFABCO, INC.’S SPECIALLY
PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a true copy thereof in the following
manner.

I placed in a sealed envelope, postage thereon prepaid, addressed and served as follows:

OAKFABCO, INC.

Filice, Brown, Hassa & McLeod LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 18° Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-0850

BY MAIL SERVICE: 1am readily familiar with the business practice at
my place of business for collection and processing
of correspondence for delivery by mail.
Correspondence so collected-and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service on
the same day in the ordinary course of business.
On the above date the said envelope was collected
for the United States Postal Service following
ordinary business practices. .

AUG 05 2008

Executed at Petaluma, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.

Joyce Diala

Louis Castagna v. Asbestos Defendants (B4P)
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 274230

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

ATTORNEYS ATLAW

BRAYTON¢PURCELL LLP

(415) 898-1555

oO UD HW BF WN =

ee ee ee
A va B WN & SG

17
18
19
20
2
2
23
24
25
26
27
28

VERIFICATION

Louis Castagna
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 274230

I, Louis Castagna, declare:
I am the plaintiff in the above-cntitled action. The foregoing Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant _Oalkfabco, Inc.’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by

Oakfabco, Inc., are true of my knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on
my information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

pated: 8S-9P-OF
sioner Loorets Camden

Please do not write below this line, If you have any changes, please submit them on a

separate sheet of paper. Thank you.EXHIBIT EATTORNEYS AT LAW
209 RUSH LANDING ROAD

BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

PORBOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Co me NDR FF YW YM

RPE Be eRe Be ewe eB ee
SSO wm NAA BBN eS

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436
SARAH K. ISAACS, ESQ., S.B. #227286
BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP

Attormeys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555 :

Attomeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA, )} ASBESTOS

) No. 274230

Plaintiff, )

)} | PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
vs. )} DEFENDANT OAKFABCO, INC.’S

) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BYP) } DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant OAKFABCO, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff LOUIS CASTAGNA
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

Plaintiff objects to defendant's Request for Production of Documents in its entirety on
the grounds that it is unduly burdensome in that it requests production at the law offices of
Filice, Brown, Eassa & McLeod LLP, located at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800, Oakland,
California 94612. Plaintiff will make available all responsive, non-privileged documents at
defendant's expense at a mutually agreeable time to counsel for plaintiff and counsel for
defendant at the law offices of Brayton%*Purcell LLP, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato,
California 94948. Subject to the foregoing objection and without waiver thereof, plaintiff
responds as follows:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds, and to the
extent, that it secks documents protected by the Attorney-Client privilege and/or the Attorney
Work-Product Doctrine. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds, and to the extent, that this
Request seeks the premature disclosure of documents within the possession of plaintiffs
retained expert consultants in violation of C.C.P. § 203