Motion-Secondary: CHARLES TOBEY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
ANDREW T. MORTL, Bar No. 177876

RUTA PASKEVICIUS, Bar No. 127784 ELECTRONICALLY
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 FILED
Walnut Creck, CA 94596 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (925) 210-2800 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (925) 945-1975 MAR 26 2010
Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Defendant BY: LUCIA RAMOS

E, L. du Pont de Nemours and Company Deputy Clerk

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

Case No. CGC-07-274226
CHARLES TOBEY,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
RUTA PASKEVICIUS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT E. L DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY’S REPLY
BRIER IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B4P),

Defendant. Date: April 1, 2010

‘Time: 9:30 a.m,
Dept.: 220

Trial Date: May 10, 2010

I, Ruta Paskevicius, declare:

1. Tam an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California, and am
of counsel with Glynn & Finley, LLP, counsel of record for defendant E.1. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (“DuPont”) in this action. The matters stated in this declaration arc true to my
own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently
thereto.

2. A true and and correct copy of plaintiff Charles Tobey’s Supplemental/Amended
Responses to Interrogatories, Sets One and Two dated September 7, 2008, was attached to my
initial declaration in this matter as Exhibit A. Our office received at least four responses to

Standard Interrogatories and Supplemental/Amended Interrogatorics prior to this date, and the

-1-

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RUTA PASKEVICUS ISO DUPONT’S MOTION FOR SUMM. JUDG.1 _ responses were substantively the same as Exhibit A. In all instances, Mr. Tobey stated that he
was employed by DuPont and worked with only one other worker, Morris Chase.

3. Exhibit B to my initial declaration consisted of copies of certain pages from the

YW WN

transcript of Mr. Tobey’s deposition testimony taken on February 12, 2009. | reccive all e-filings
5 and correspondence sent to our office in this matter, [ did not receive any corrections to Mr.
6 Tobcy’s deposition testimony regarding DuPont.
7 4, Exhibit C is a tue and correct copy of Standard Interrogatories to Plaintiff
8 (Personal Injury), Set 2 (Exh. C to General Order No. 129), requiring Plaintiff to state, inter alia
9 whether he alleges exposure from asbestos-containing materials other than those he personally
10 installed, removed, disturbed or handled, and further details in that regard (#11).
IL 5. Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a portion of Plaintiff's
12 Supplemental/Amendcd Responses to Interrogatories Sets One and Two, dated 3/20/09, after Mr.
13 Tobey’s deposition. Plaintiff lists his employer as DuPont, and states that he worked with only
14 one other worker. There is no mention of other DuPont personnel working around him, or any
15 alleged asbestos exposure from any other source. In order to conserve resources, only the face
16 page and the relevant DuPont entry have been included in this exhibit.
17 6. Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a portion of Plaintif’s
18 Supplemental/Amended Responses to Interrogatories Scts One and Two, dated 6/18/09, after Mr.
19  Tobcy’s deposition. Plaintiff lists his employer as DuPont, and slates that he worked with only
20 one other worker. There is no mention of other DuPont personnel working around him, or any
21 alleged asbestos exposure from any other source. In order to conserve resources, only the face
22 page and the relevant DuPont entry have been included in this exhibit.
23 7. Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a portion of Plaintiff's
24 Supplemental/Amended Responses to Interrogatories Sets One and ‘Two, dated 3/20/09, afler Mr.
25 Tobey’s deposition. Plaintiff lists his employer as DuPont, and states that he worked with only
26 onc other worker. There is no mention of other DuPont personnel working around him, or any
27 alleged asbestos exposure from any other source. In order to conserve resources, only the face

28 page and the relevant DuPont entry have been included in this exhibit.

-2-
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RUTA PASKEVICUS ISO DUPONT’S MOTION FOR SUMM, JUDG.1 8. Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of DuPont's special interrogatories, set one,

2 served on Plaintiff.

3 9. Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's verified amended responses to

4  DuPont’s special interrogatories, set one.

5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this Usth
6 day of March, 2010 in Walnut Creek, California.

7

8 (luck Vanion [CLUA

Ruta Paskevicius

9
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RUTA PASKEVICUS ISO DUPONT’S MOTION FOR SUMM. JUDG.EXHIBIT CBw BP

27
28

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Plaintiff(s), ) NO.
)
vs. ) DEFENDANTS' STANDARD
) INTERROGATORIES
) TO PLAINTIFF (Personal
Defendant(s). ) i 2
)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendants,
RESPONDING PARTY: ©
SET NUMBER: Two
INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court General Order No. 129, each plaintiff in the above-
captioned asbestos litigation is required to respond to the following standard interrogatories, Set 2,

separately and fully in writing, under oath, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030 no less

than 30 days before commencement of the deposition of the plaintiff or in the event of notice of the
plaintiff's deposition by the plaintiff's attorney, contemporaneous with plaintiff's service of the
notice of deposition. In responding to these standard interrogatories, Set 2, YOU are required to
furnish all information that is available to YOU, except that where specified YOU are also required
| to include information available to YOUR attorney(s). If YOU cannot answer a standard

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129 -1-interrogatory, Set 2, completely, answer it to the fullest extent possible and specify the reason(s) for
YOUR inability to respond fully.

If any defendant questions the sufficiency of the responses to these standard interrogatories,
Set 2, such defendant may move to compel appropriate Tesponses under the applicable provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, after complying with California Rules of Court and Local Rules of
Court.

DEFINITIONS

1 “AREA” means the name of the specific structure, building, building number, floor of
the building, ship compartment, process line, unit, piece of equipment or other specific place within
the WORKSITE.

2. “ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL” means a material or product which

consists of or contains the mineral asbestos.

3. “CONTROL” means the act(s) of directing the manner and/or methods of conducting.
the work at the WORKSITE.
4, “DESCRIBE” as it relates to material means provide a complete description of the

material including but not limited to: the material name, manufacturer, supplier, distributor, color,
texture, consistency, shape, size and any markings; a description of the material’s container
including size, color and all writing on that container; and a description of how the material was
used.

5. “DOCUMENTS” means any writing as defined in Evidence Code Section 250 and
includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing,
computer printout, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing or form of
communication or representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or
combinations of them.

6. “IDENTIFY” as it relates to a DOCUMENT means provide the title of the
DOCUMENT, the date the DOCUMENT was generated, the name of the author of the
DOCUMENT, a description of the DOCUMENT (e.g, letter, memorandum, report, book,

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129 -2-PB win

photograph, etc.) And any other information which would be required to specify the DOCUMENT in
a request for production of DOCUMENTS issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.

7. “IDENTIFY” as it relates to an employer means to state the employer's name, address
and telephone number.

8. “IDENTIFY” as it relates to a person means to provide the name, place of
employment, address and telephone number for each person,

9. “IDENTIFY” as it relates to a ship means to state the name of the ship, the owner of
the ship, the operator of the ship, the type of ship and the hull number of the ship.

10. | LOCATION” means the city, state, country, street address, intersection or shipyard.
For work aboard ship, please IDENTIFY the ship and where it was located during the time YOU
worked on board.

lL. “OCCASION?” refers to a day, any part of a day, or a series of day(s), week(s),
month(s) or year(s) during which YOU worked continuously at a WORKSITE.

12. “RAW ASBESTOS” means asbestos fiber mined or milled, either packaged or in
bulk, not compounded with other substances and essentially pure with the exception of naturally
occurring trace amounts of other substances,

13. “RESPONSIBLE PARTY” means any person, business organization or enterprise,
including but not limited to the defendants in this action,

14. “SAFETY PRECAUTION” means respirators, masks, fans, air blowers, tarps, wet-
down procedures, isolation and any other equipment and/or methods used to limit or prevent
exposure to dust.

15. “WORKSITE” means any LOCATION where YOU worked at any time.

16. “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to the person whose claimed exposure to asbestos is the
basis of this action..

INTERROGATORIES
1 For each of YOUR WORKSITES, please state:
A. The name of the WORKSITE;

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129 -3-B. The LOCATION of the WORKSITE;

Cc. As precisely as possible, the time period you worked at the WORKSITE, including
the total number of days you worked at the WORKSITE;

D. The name and address of each of YOUR employers;

E YOUR job title(s);

F. Each kind of work YOU performed at the WORKSITE;

G. Whether there was one or more OCCASIONS when YOU worked with or around
RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) at the WORKSITE. For
subsequent OCCASIONS at a given WORKSITE, information which is unchanged need not be
repeated. If “yes”, for each OCCASION, please state:

1. The specific AREA within the WORKSITE where YOU worked with or
around RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S);

2. As precisely as possible, the time period of each such OCCASION, including
the total number of days of cach such OCCASION;

3. IDENTIFY all person(s) who directed YOUR day-to-day work activity and
that person(s)’ employer;

4. IDENTIFY all persons who were YOUR co-workers on this OCCASION;

5. IDENTIFY all persons who have information regarding YOUR work with or
around RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) on this OCCASION;

6. List each contractor YOU and/or YOUR attomey allege installed and/or
removed RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) during YOUR work at
that site;

7. List each contractor YOU and/or YOUR attorney allege installed and/or
removed RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) prior to YOUR work
at that site;

8. IDENTIFY all documents in YOUR possession or under YOUR control
relating to YOUR work on this OCCASION, including but not limited to travel logs, diaries, work

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129 -4-logs, calendars, time sheets, photographs, drawings and union logs or summaries.

9. IDENTIFY all other DOCUMENTS of which YOU or YOUR attorneys are
aware relating to YOUR work on this OCCASION, including but not limited to time sheets,
invoices, purchase orders, contracts, specifications, photographs, drawings, job logs, work requests
and union dispatch slips.

10. Whether YOU installed, removed, disturbed or handled RAW ASBESTOS or
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) during the OCCASION. If “yes”:

a. DESCRIBE each RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING
MATERIAL(S) YOU installed, removed, disturbed or handled during the OCCASION;

b. DESCRIBE specifically the work YOU performed regarding each
RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL including whether the work was
performed indoors or outdoors;

G State whether YOUR employer took any SAFETY PRECAUTIONS to
protect YOU from breathing dust. If “yes”, describe each SAFETY PRECAUTION taken;

d, State whether YOUR union or employee association took any
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS to protect YOU from breathing dust. If “yes”, describe each SAFETY
PRECAUTION taken; and.

e. State whether YOU took any SAFETY PRECAUTIONS to protect
YOU from breathing dust. If “yes”, describe each SAFETY PRECAUTION taken.

1f. - Whether YOU allege any exposure to asbestos from RAW ASBESTOS or
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) other than those YOU personally installed, removed,
disturbed or handled YOURself during the OCCASION. If “yes”:

a. Describe specifically the work YOU performed during the
OCCASION, including whether the work was performed indoors or outdoors;

b. DESCRIBE each RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING
MATERIAL(S) that released the asbestos fibers to which YOU allege exposure;

c List the trade(s) using the RAW ASBESTOS or ASBESTOS-

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129 -3-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) and IDENTIFY the employer of each trade;

d. Describe the manner in which each trade used the RAW ASBESTOS
or ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S), (for example: installed, removed, disturbed or
handled);

e. Describe:

i, The AREA where the trades using the RAW ASBESTOS or
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL(S) worked, and:
ii. The approximate distance from that AREA to the AREA where
YOU worked;

f. State whether YOUR employer took any SAFETY PRECAUTIONS to
protect YOU from breathing dust (for example: work segregation, ventilation, wet-down, hazard
education, working signs, respiratory protection). If “yes”, describe each SAFETY PRECAUTION
taken;

g. State whether YOUR union or employee association took any
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS to protect YOU from breathing dust. if “yes”, describe each SAFETY
PRECAUTION taken; and

h.- State whether YOU took any SAFETY PRECAUTIONS to protect
YOU from breathing dust. If “yes”, describe each SAFETY PRECAUTION taken.

2. Tf you are aware that any person YOU have identified in the Preceding Interrogatory No. |

has had his or her deposition taken, IDENTIFY the deposition by the name of the deponent, the date
the deposition was taken, the caption and number of the action in which it was taken, the court which
had jurisdiction over the action in which it was taken (including state and county) and either the
name and address of the court reporting agency which took the deposition or the name and address of
deponent’s counsel of record.

3. Either (1) attach all DOCUMENTS evidencing the information sought in these

‘interrogatories and their subparts to your answers to these interrogatories, or (2) attach disks

containing such data, or (3) describe such DOCUMENTS with sufficient particularity that they may

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129 -6-be made the subject of a request for production of documents.

Exhibit C to General Order No. 129EXHIBIT D24369736

Ssenus

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685

ERIC C. SOLOMON, ESQ., S.B. #119131 Mar 24 2p09
2 BRAYTON*%*PURCELL LLP . 3:18P
Altorneys at Law :
3 || 222 Rush Landing Road
P.O, Box 6169 _
4]| Novato, California 94948
(415) 898-1555
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
li || CHARLES TOBEY, ASBESTOS
No, 274226
12 Plaintiff, )
> ) SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED
32 3 13] vs. : } RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
st
38 eo) ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) 5
ba536 )
$9588
ZnO F
8 be" 5 PROPOUNDING PARTY: STANDARD ASBESTOS CASE INTERROGATORIES
Ze :
g* 8 17] RESPONDINGPARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES TOBEY
18] SET NOS.: » ONE and TWO
19 Plaintiff supplements/amends his Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,

20|| Set One, No. 26, and Set Two, Nos. 1 through 3, as follows:

21] SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED RESPONSE: Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though

22 | fully set forth herein, all work history jobsites and co-workers and related information identified
23 || in the attached Exhibit A.

24! Dated: 6 BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP

26 By: Sout dobomim:

Eri¢'C. Solomon
27 : Attomeys for Plaintiff

K Mgjured\10735@\ai-supsacd.wpd 1 BCSoe we ND HW FR WON

Bob Sandoval, (deceased), Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during
this employment.

Location of . Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Western Asbestos Company,- Bethlehem Steel, Insulator 1965
3150 Third Street, Shipbuilding Gourneyman)

San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff worked in the pad shop for about 6 months, fabricating asbestos pads by
sewing asbestos cloth together. Plaintiff removed and replaced piping on boilers and ships.
Plaintiff applied and removed steam line insulation. Plaintiff recalls cutting and fitting asbestos
products since there were no pre-fit parts, Plaintiff recalls using 353 “blue mud” asbestos.
Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of . Exposure
Employer * Exposure Job Title Dates
Western Asbestos Company, Dow Chemical Insulator 1965 (Approx. 5
3150 Third Street, Pittsburg, CA. Qourneyman) months)

San Francisco, CA

Job Duties: Plaintiff installed pipecovering, Plaintiff recalls working with 353 “blue mud”
cement and OWENS CORNING: FIBERGLAS KAYLO insulation. Plaintiff recalls the
following coworkers: Dole Daveson, current address unknown; Rob Sandoval (deceased); Bob
Ross,, c/o Brayton%*Purcell LLP; Earl Riggs (deceased). Plaintiff current contends that he was
exposed to asbestos during this employment. :

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates ©
Owens Corning World Chevron (Standard Oil) Insulator 1965 (Approx, 6
Headquarters, Richmond, CA Qoumeyman) months)
1700 MacCorkle Avenue SE,

Charleston, WV

Job Duties: Plaintiff installed

pipe insulation on piping lines about 36 inches long used to bring

crude oil in from the shi
Brayton**Purcell LLP;

s. Plaintiff recalls the following coworkers: Warren Haase,, c/o
arl Ramsey,, c/o Brayton%*Purcell LLP; John Small, current address

unknown; Jim Clark, current address unknown; and Don Cox,, c/o Brayton**Purcell LEP.
Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Employer
E.L Dupont de Nemours

Location of Exposure
Exposure Job Title Dates

E.I. Dupont de Nemours Insulator 1965-1966
Antioch, CA (Journeyman)

Job Duties: Plaintiff performed repair work and created new additions on piping lines and
boilers. Plaintiff recalis working with only one other worker, Morris Chase, current address
unknown. Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Mt

KAlnjured\107356lai-supsaed.wpd.EXHIBIT EBRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS ATLAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6t69
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 949486169

(415) 898-1535

Ce MW Dw Aw Ne

2

ALAN R, BRAYTON, ESQ,, S.B. #73685
JENNIFER L. ALESIO, ESQ., S.B. #258413
BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948

(415) 898-1555

Attomeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES TOBLY, ASBESTOS
No. 274226
Plaintiff,

VS, RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B4P)

)
} SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED
2
)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: STANDARD ASBESTOS CASE INTERROGATORIES
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES TOBEY
SET NOS: ONE and TWO

Plaintiff supplements/amends his Responses to Standard Asbestos Case interrogatories,

Set One, No. 26, and Set Two, Nos. | through 3, as follows:

SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED RESPONSE: Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though

‘fully set forth herein, all work history jobsites and co-workers and related information identified

in the attached Exhibjt A.
Dated:

La

fer L. Mtésio

mneys for Plaintiff

KAnjured\l07356\pi¢\AL-Supsac3. wpd 1 AOo OC NYA vA Bw WN

3

Location of : Exposure

Employer - Exposure Job Title; Dates

: |
Owens Corning World Chevron (Standard Oil) Insulator: 1965 (Approx. 6
Headquarters, Richmond, CA (Journeyman) months)

1700 MacCorkle Avenue SE,
Charleston, WV

Job Duties: Plaintiff installed pipe insulation on piping lines about 36 inches long used to bring
crude oil in from the ships. Plaintiff recalls the following coworkers: Warren Haase c/o
Brayton Purcell LLP; Carl Ramsey c/o Brayton%*Purcell LLP; John Small, current address
unknown; Jim Clark, current address unknown; and Don Cox c/a Brayton%+Purcell LLP.
Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this employment. .

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
EI. Dupont de Nemours EI. Dupont de Nemours Insulator 1965-1966
Antioch, CA (Journeyman)

Job Duties: Plaintiff performed repair work and created new additions on piping lines and
boilers. Plaintiff recalls working with only one other worker, Morris Chase, current address
unknown, Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Owens Corning World Various ships and Insulator 1966-1967
Headquarters, submarines Gourneyman) (1 year)
1700 MacCorkle Avenue SE, Mare Island Naval
Charleston, WV Shipyard

Vallejo, CA

THRESHER

(SSN 596);

DRUM (SSN 677)

Job Duties: Plaintiff insulated pipes and turbines in the engine rooms of two Gr three vessels.
Plaintiff installed insulation on the THRESHER and the DRUM. Plaintiff used FIBREBOARD
hard board duct insulation. Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during
this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Plant Insulation Co., Pacific Refining Company, Insulator 1966-1967
2271 California St., Hercules, CA (Journeyman)

San Francisco, CA

Jeb Dutics: Plaintiff insulated pipes with PABCO pipecovering, Plaintiff recalls the following
co-workers: Merlin Tobey, deceased (his father); Phil Talley, c/o Brayton%Purcell LLP; Bob.
Chernoh, current address unknown; Bob Coe, current address unknown; Larry Hagen c/o
BraytonPurcell LLP; John Minster, c/o Braylon**Purcell LLP; Billy Armstrong, c/o
Brayton*Purcell LLP; and Warren Haase, c/o Brayton+Purcell LLP. Plaintiff recalls the

KMnjuredi073S¢\pldval-Supsac3.wpd 9 LAEXHIBIT FATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
FORO}

BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ce MW A he Bw LP

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ,, S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436
EFFAT R. HUSSAIN, ESQ., S.B. #255847
BRAYTON*%*PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES TOBEY, ) ASBESTOS
} No. 274236
Plainuff, }
) SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED
vs. } RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
)

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B4*P)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: STANDARD ASBESTOS CASE INTERROGATORIBS
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES TOBEY
SET NOS.: ONE and TWO

Plaintiff supplements/amends his Responses to Standard Asbestos (case Interrogatories,
Set One, No. 26, and Set Two, Nos. 1 through 3, as follows:
SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED RESPONSE: Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though

fully set forth herein, all work history jobsites and co-workers and related information identified
im the Ne Exhibit A.
Dated: BRAYTON*®PURCELL LLP

os

By

ERark. ssh
Attorneys for Plaintiff

RAInjured 107356 pMLAL-Snpsack.wpd L ethSo Oo 8 a AH Bw Ww

unknown; Jim Clark, current address unknown; and Don Cox c/o Brayton Purcell LLP.
Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
E.I. Dupont de Nemours E.l. Dupont de Nemours Insulator 1965-1966
Antioch, CA (Journeyman)

Job Duties: Plaintiff performed repair work and created new additions on piping lines and
boilers. Plaintiff recalls working with only one other worker, Morris Chase, current address
unknown. Plaintiff currently contends that he was exposed to asbestos durin this employment,

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dales
Owens Corning World Various ships and Insulator 1966-1967
Headquarters, submarines (Journeyman) {| year)
1700 MacCorkle Avenue SE, Mare Island Naval
Charleston, WV Shipyard

Vallejo, CA

GUITARRO (SSN-665)

DRUM (SSN 677)

Job Duties: Plaintiff insulated pipes and turbines in the engine rooms of two or three vessels.
Plainlizf installed inswation on the and the DRUM. Plaintiff used FIBREBOARD hard board
duct insulation, Plaintiff curently contends that he was exposed to asbestos during this
employment.

Location of ixposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Plant Insulation Co., Pacific Refining Company, Insulator 1960-1967

2271 California St., Hercules, CA (Journeyman)
San Francisco, CA .

Job Duties: Plaintif! insulated pipes with PABCO pipecovering, Plaintiff recalls the following
co-workers: Merlin ‘Tobey, deceased (his father), Phil Talley, c/o Brayton**)arcell LLP; Bob
Chernoh, current address unknown, Bob Coo, current address unknown; Larry Hagen c/o
Brayton Purcell LLP; John Minster, c/o Brayton**Purcell LLP; Billy Armstrong, c/o
Brayton%*Purcell LLP; and Warren Haase, c/o Brayton%*Purcell LLP. Plaintiff recalls the
following supervisors: Paul Westbrook, c/o Brayion%*Purcell LLP; and Charlie Chase,
deceased. Plaintiff currently contends he was exposed to asbestos during this employment.

Location of

Employer Exposure Job Title
Plant Insulation Co., Eagle Picher Insulator 10/1966-1967
2271 California St., Lovelock, NV (Journeyman)

San Francisco, CA

uf

KAlnjured | 17356\pl\WAL-Supsacs wpa 9 exhEXHIBIT GGLYNN & FINLEY, LLP

ANDREW T. MORTL, Bar No. 177876
DAWN CEIZLER, Bar No. 214873
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE, Bar No. 238559
One Walnut Creek Center

100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Telephone: (925) 210-2800

Facsimile: (925) 945-1975

Attorneys for Defendant
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

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

Case No. CGC-07-274226

)
CHARLES TOBEY, )
) DEFENDANT E. L. DU PONT DE
Plaintiff, ) NEMOURS AND COMPANY'S
) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO
vs, ) PLAINTIFF, SET ONE
)
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BéP), )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Charles Tobey
SET NO.: One

To plaintiff Charles Tobey (hereafter, “Plaintiff”) and his attorneys of record:

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.020 Defendant E. L du Pont de
Nemours and Company, (hereinafter, “DuPont”) requests that Plaintiff respond to the following
special interrogatories within 30 days after service hereof.

DEFINITIONS & INSTRUCTIONS

The following definitions and instructions shall apply to these interrogatories:
1. The words “YOU” or “YOUR” means Plaintiff Charles Tobey and any
individual or entity acting or purporting to act for or on his behalf.

-1-

DuPont’s SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF2. The term “DUPONT” means defendant E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company.

3. The term “DOCUMENT” means all written, printed, typed, recorded, or
graphic material, however produced or reproduced, including without limitation, all writings,
notes, shorthand notes, correspondence, newsletters, drawings, graphs, literature, labels, charts,
photographs, sound reproduction tapes, data compilations for information that could be obtained
or transmitted through detection devices in any reasonably usable form, computer inputs or
outputs, or any other tangible thing that constitutes or contains material within the scope of
discovery permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure.

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1.

State all facts that support YOUR claim that YOU worked with or around
asbestos containing products at a DUPONT facility.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2.

Identify all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR claim that YOU worked with or
around asbestos containing products at a DUPONT facility.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3.

Identify all witnesses that have knowledge of facts supporting YOUR claim that
YOU worked with or around asbestos containing products at a DUPONT facility.

Dated: July3(, 2007 GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
ANDREW T. MORTL
DAWN CEIZLER
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut 7 CA LEZ

ys BLL ee — lefefdant
Ven Po lemours and
‘ompan:

~2-
DUPONT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFDocket No. CGC-07-274226
PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

I, Beverly Carter, the undersigned, declare:

1. Tam, and was at the time of service of the documents herein referred to,
over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the action;

2. Tam employed in the County of Contra Costa, California;

3, My business address is One Walnut Creek Center, 100 Pringle Avenue,
Suite 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.

4. On the date executed below, I electronically served the document via
LexisNexis File & Serve described as:

DEFENDANT E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
website.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 31st day of July, 2007 at Walnut Creck,

California.

‘s/__Beverly Carter
Beverly Carter

-1-

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSIONEXHIBIT HBRAYTON4 PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222, RUSH LANDING ROAD

P OBOX 6162
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-5169

{E5) 898-1555

eB Me

Cet Aw

15

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685.
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436
ROBERT L. LYNCH, ESQ., S.B. #248125
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

DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL.
INTERROGATORIES

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES TOBEY, ) ASBESTOS
} No. 274226
Plaintiff, )
: § PLAINTIFFS VERIRIED AMENDED
vs. ) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EL
2
)

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant E.J. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHARLES TOBEY
SET NO: ONE

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. |: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it is not full and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P.

§ 2030.060(c)-(d) because these Interrogatories contain an improper preface and instructions
with definitions, Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
not reasonably limited in time or scope, and as such is unduly burdensome and oppressive to
plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogalory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms and phrases, including but not
limited to “asbestos containing.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds, and to
the extent that, by asking for “all facts” it seeks information protected by the right of privacy
Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that, and to the extent which, it
seeks disclosure of information protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product
Doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory upon the grounds that defendant
improperly seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is protected under
California law pursuant to Evid. Code § 1152. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it calls for expert opinions and conclusions 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 to this Interrogatory on the
grounds, and to the extent, that it seeks premature disclosure of litigation consultant information
and documents within the possession of plaintiff's retained litigation consultants, who may or

K Anjprec\07356wogs-veri-rsp-MUPONT. wpe I rxCo mM IY DH BF wy Ye

Doe Ee Be ee Re ee ee
SoU ODN AA BENE S

may not be designated as expert witnesses, in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.220, any expert
information or documents will be provided to defendant pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034.230 at the
appropriate time before trial once plaintiff has made a determination about experts and who will
testify at trial. See, e.g. Hemandez v. Superior Court, (2003) 112 Cal-App.4th 285,

é FgkPtr sd 883. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
follows:

While employed by DUPONT, plaintiff worked at the DUPONT facility in Antioch,
California from 1965-1966 as an insulator. plaintiff performed repair work and created new
additions on piping lines and boilers. Plaintiff insulated everything using ARMSTRONG
insulation for cold water lines. Plaintiff used OWENS CORNING FIBERGLAS KAYLO
insulation.

Defendant failed to exercise due/ordinary care in order to avoid injuring plaintiff while
plaintiff worked at defendant’s facility in Antioch, Califomia. Defendant did not isolate work
involving asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Defendant did not maintain the premises
so as to prevent exposure to asbestos, a hazardous substance. Defendant did not provide a
changing room with adequate storage facilities for clothing, showers, baths, and lavatories
having hot and cold running water. Defendant did not control, teduce or eliminate dust or
provide adequate ventilation. Defendant did not provide plaintiff with respiratory safety
equipment or educate plaintiff regarding the use of respiratory safety equipment. Further,
defendant controlled the work site by coordinating, managing and overseeing the installation
and removal of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to which plaintiff was exposed,
Defendant contracted for the installation and/or removal, and otherwise caused asbestos-
containing products to be present at the Antioch, California premises and recommended,
specified, and induced the use of asbestos-containing products at defendant's Antioch,
California premises. As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff was cxposed to asbestos fibers
and dust released into the ambient air from asbestos-containing products being used at
defendant’s premises in Antioch, California, and plaintiff consequently developed an asbestos-
related injury.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220, after making a reasonable and ood-faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, plaintiff belicves that he
has no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time. Plaintiff's
investigation and discovery are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this answer
pending the outcome of this investigation.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it is not full and compicte in and of itself in violation of C.C.P.

§ 2030.060(c)-{d) because these Interrogatories contain an improper preface and instructions
with definitions. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
not reasonably limited in time or scope, and as such is unduly burdensome and oppressive to
plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms and phrases, including but not
limited to “asbestos containing.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds, and to
the extent that, by asking for “all documents” it seeks information protected by the right of
privacy. Plaintiff farther objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that, and to the extent
which, it seeks disclosure of information protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-
Product Doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory upon the grounds that defendant
improperly seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is protected under
California law pursuant to Bvid. Code § 1152. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it calls for expert opinions and conclusions 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 to this Interrogatory on the
grounds, and to the extent, that it seeks premature disclosure of litigation consultant information
and documents within the possession of plaintiff's retained litigation consultants, who may or
may not be designated as expert witnesses, in violation of CCP. § 2034.220; any expert
information or documents will be provided to defendant pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034.220 at the

K Majored\107356\rogs-verif-rsp-DUPONT.wpd 2 nloe aN DR Bw Ye

eee ee
Vs Bw NE S

16

appropriate time before trial once plaintiff has made a determination about experts and who will

testify at trial. See, e.g. Hernandez v. Superior Court, (2003) 112 Cal. App.4th 285,

; Gal-Rotr.3d 883. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
‘ollows:

Plaintiff identifies the Complaint in this action and all exhibits attached thereto.
Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents,

Plaintiff identifies all responses to Defendants’ Standard Request for Production and
Identification of Documents and Things to Plaintiff(s) pursuant to General Order 129 and
General Order 140 and all exhibits attached thereto, previously provided to defendant and
equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue,
Oakland, California 94610, (510) 835-8330

Plaintiff identifies all responses to General Ordet No. 129 Standard Asbestos Case
Intercogatories, and all exhibits attached thereto, previously provided to defendant and equally
available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Ber’y, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
California 94610, (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff’s medical records, employment records, military
records, and Social Security records, previously produced in response to Defendants’ Standard
Request for Production and | Identification of Documents and Things to Plaintiff(s) pursuant lo
General Order 129 and General Order 140, and equally available from coordinating defense
counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610, (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies aj] the business and crmmployment records of DUPONT. Plaintiff
believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff presently identifies any writings representing, recording or referring to any
disability pension or disability insurance benefits received by plaintiff or claims/applications by
plaintiff for such benefits, previously provided to Designated Nefense Counsel and equally
available to defendant.

Plaintiff-presently identifies any documents related to any Workers’ Compensation
benefits or claims/applications by paint for such benefits, previously provided to Designated
Defense Counsel and equally available to defendant. Copies of these documents are available
from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 2nd Floor, San
Francisco, Califomia 94102,

Plaintiff presently identifies the deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto,
of all defendants in this action, including but not limited to the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable
and Custodian(s) of Records, c/o each defendants’ attomeys of record. A list of defendants’
attorneys of record is equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930
Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610, (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff presently identifies ail depositions of, and documents in the possession of
persons identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. [1], equally available from each

erson.
p Plaintiff further identifies the deposition transcript, and all exhibits attached thereto, of
Thomas Kent (c/o Brayton Purcell LLP) taken August 30, 2006, and all subsequent days in
the matter of Thomas Kent v. Asbestos Defendants in San Francisco Superior Court Casé
No. 446221. Copies of these transcripts are equally available to defendant through the court
reporter, Aiken and Welch, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California or other sources.
Said documentation was created and/or delivered to defendant, and is therefore equally
available to defendant.

Plaintiff 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, clectronic 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 DUPONT’s constructive possession, custady, care or control

KeAtnjured\073S6\zogs-verif-rap-DUPONT. wed 3 alom IT De Fw He

eee
wr

relating to plaintiff and at any job sites that plaintiff worked at. Plaintiff believes defendant is
in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies al] of the agreements and contracts between defendant DUPONT and
any general contractor and sub-contractor who was present at any job sites that plaintiff worked
at.

Plaintiff identifies all of the labeling and packaging materials for all of the asbestos-
containing materials used at job sites owned by defendant DUPONT. Plaintiff believes
defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies all of the labeling and packaging materials for all asbestos-
containing products produced by or for DUPONT. Plaintiff further identifies any and all
documents referencing defendant DUPONT’s products. Plaintiff belicves defendant is in
possession of these documents.

Plaintiff presently identifies 20 U.S.C. § 3601.

Plaintiff identifies numerous articles and studies relating to the health hazards associated
with cxposure to asbestos which have appeaced in medical and scientific Hterature since the
1900s and have also been summarized in various publications. Plaintiff identifies two texts that
contain summaries and/or bibliographies of asbestos-related disease. They are:

Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects.
Barry {, Castleman, Prentice-Hall Law & Business, 1990.

Sourcebook on Asbestos Disease: Medical, Legal & Engineering Aspects,

George A, Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press,
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986.

Plaintiff is in possession of these texis and will make them available for defendant's review.
Duc to possible conflict with copyright laws, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these texts to
defendant.

Plaintiff identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated pursuant to California
Labor Code § 6400,-et seg. and California Administrative Code under the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, including, but not limited to,
Title VIEL, Group 9 (Control of Hazardons 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 identifies NESHAP Asbestos Regulations (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants) which are found at Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter |,
Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart M, published under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, 42
US.C.A. Section 7412(b)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7412(b)(1)(B).

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

Plaintiff further identifies Workers’ Compensation Law since the 1930's, under which
asbestos has been a compensable disease. Plaintiff is in posscssion of these texts and will make
them available for defendant’s review.

Plaintiff presently identifies defondant’s patents, equally available from the U.S. Patent
and ‘Trademark Office, Public Search Facility - Madison East, ist Floor, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, (571) 272-3275.

Plaintiff presently identifics defendant's filings, equally available from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, District of Columbia
20549, (202) 551-6551.

Plaintiff presently identifies business filings and corporate records for defendant

| DUPONT, equally available from the California ecretary of State, 1500 11th Street,

Sacramento, Califomia, 95814, (916) 657-5448.
Plaintiff presently identifics property records for the DUPONT plant where plaintiff
worked, in Antioch California, equally available from San Francisco County Assessor-

KAlnjured\07356\rogs-verif-rsp- DUPONT. wpd 4 ralCoe ND HW FY Ye

Oo Me Ss

14

Recorder, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 190, San Francisco, California
94102, (415) 554-5516. :

Plaintiff presently identities Ford of Britain’s reports documenting asbestos studies,
equally available from Ford Information Service, P.O. Box 25149, Glasgow G2 4XF, United
Kingdom.

Plaintiff presently identifies an asbestos brake study performed by William E. Longo,
Ph.D., equally available from Materials Analytical Services Inc, 3945 Lakefield Court,
Suwance, Georgia 30024 (770) 866-3200.

Plaintiff presently identifies the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
guidance document on Asbestos-Conlaining Materials in School Buildings, March 1979,
oqually available from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
20460.

Plaintiff presently identifies the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
Guidance for Preventing Asbestas Disease Among Aulo Mechanics, June 1986, equally
available from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 20460.

Plaintiff presently identifies the case of Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna

Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal_App.4th 1, 97-103.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220, after making a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, plaintiff believes that he
has no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time. Plaintiff's
investigation and discovery are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this answer

pending the outcome of this investigation.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff objecis to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it is not full and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P.

§ 2030.060(c)-(d) because these Interrogatories contain an improper preface and instructions
with definitions. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and
not reasonably limited in time or scope, and as such is unduly burdensome and oppressive lo
plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of undefined terms and phrases, including but nol
limited to “knowledge,” “facts,” “supporting” and “asbestos containing.” Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds, and to the extent, that il seeks premature disclosure
of litigation consultant information and documents within the possession of plaintiff's retained
litigation consultants, who may or may not be designated as expert witnesses, in violation of
C.C.P. § 2034.220; any expert information or documents will be provided to defendant pursuant
to C.C_P, § 2034.220 at the appropriate time before trial once plaintiff has made a determination
about experts and who will testify at trial. See, e.g. Hermandez v. Superior Court, (2003)

112 Cal.App.4th 285, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 883. Subject to and without waiving said objections,
plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff refers to, and incorporates by reference herein, atl persons identified in
plaintiff's response to Special Interrogatory Nos. | and 2.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220, after making a reasonable and pood-faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, plaintiff believes that he
has no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time. Plaintiff's
investigation and discovery are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this answer
pending the outcome of this investigation.

Dated: Se prZ Loot BRAYTON*PORCELL LLP
LA Lo.
fi

By: _¢
Robert L. Lynch”
Attorneys for Plaintiff

K.Mnjured\L07356\rogs-verif-rsp-DLPONT.wpd 5 x(415) 898-1555

ATTORNEYS ATLAW
222 RUSHLANDING ROAD

BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 4948-6169

ERIFICATS

Charles Tobey
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 274226

I, Charles Tobey, declare:
Tam the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, The foregoing Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant E. 1 Dupont De Nemours And Companiy’s First Set of Special Interrogatories, Set

One, propounded by E. I Dupont De Nemours and Company, 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 truc.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. .
» if
Dated: Y aq @ 7

Signed: lle Cale

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

separate sheet of paper. Thank you.BRAYTONS PURCELL LLP

ATIORNBYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO. CALIFORNIA 949148.5169

(AES) 298-1559

-

po aX HW