Exhibit,Appendix: GODOFREDO PIQUE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                |

PAUL V. LANKFORD (State Bar No, 181506)
plankford@Iclaw.com

PAUL LANNUS (State Bar No. 192551)
plannus@lclaw.com

J. PAUL FANNING (State Bar No. 226556)
Jpfanning@lclaw.com

LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP
1850 Mt. Diablo Bivd., Suite 600

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Telephone: 925.300.3520

Facsimile: 925.300.3386

Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JAN 25 2012

Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ

Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir,
and as Successor-In-Interest to
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and
MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE,
FREDERICK PIQUE, as Legal Heirs of
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (Brayton.
Purcell),

Defendants.

ASBESTOS
Case No. CGC 08-274659

Exnrsit A TO THE DECLARATION OF J.
PAUL FANNING IN Support OF
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
MoTION EN LIMINE To EXCLUDE
ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING
To AFTERMARKET Parts [MIL #40]

ale

DECLARATION OF PAUL LANNUS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE To EXCLUDE
ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO AFTERMARKET PARTS [MIL #40]EXHIBIT A28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP
ATIDRNEYS AT LAW

PAUL V. LANKFORD (State Bar No. 181506)
plankford@!Iclaw.com

PAUL LANNUS (State Bar No. 192551)
plannus@lclaw.com

LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP

1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 600

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Telephone: 925.300.3520

Facsimile: 925.300.3386

Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir,
and as Successor-In-Interest to
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and
MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE,
FREDERICK PIQUE, as Legal Heirs of
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

VS.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (Brayton
Purcell),

Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY:
RESPONDING PARTY:

ASBESTOS

Case No. CGC-08-274659

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR
COMPANY’S SPECIALLY
PREPARED INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Plaintiff ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as

Successor-In-Interest to GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and
MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE, FREDERICK
PIQUE, as Legal Heirs of GQDOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased

SET NUMBER: ONE

ale

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE.28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP.

AYSORNEYS AT LAW

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY hereby requests that plaintiff respond to the
following interrogatories in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030, in

writing and under oath, within thirty (30) days.

INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Do YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which FORD is allegedly liable?

As used herein plaintiff refers to the plaintiff in a personal injury action and the decedent in
a wrongful death action; and shail refer to both plaintiff in the singular and plural, as appropriate.
“YOU” and “YOUR?” refers to plaintiff, plaintiff's agents, employees, insurance companies (and
their agents and employees), plaintiff's attorneys, accountants, investigators, and anyone else
acting on plaintiff's behalf. “ASBESTOS” shall include asbestos-containing materials, asbestos-
containing friction materials or asbestos-containing products. “FORD” shall refer to defendant
Ford Motor Company and any of its corporate entities, divisions or predecessors for which YOU
contend it has liability in this matter. “DECEDENT” means the subject of this lawsuit,
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased.

INTERROGATORY NO, 2:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which FORD is allegedly liable,
please state all facts supporting this contention.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

1f YOU contend that YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which FORD is allegedly
liable, IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have knowledge of YOUR alleged exposure.

For the purpose of these interrogatories, “PERSON” or “PERSONS?” refers to all forms of
legal entities, including, without limitation, individuals, unincorporated associations, labor unions,
partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, trusts, estates, or other business or public/government
entities. Furthermore, when asked to “IDENTIFY” a “PERSON”, “identify” means by current full

or business name, current address, telephone number and employer.

-2-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

For each PERSON listed in the preceding interrogatory response, state all information
YOU know each PERSON to possess which supports YOUR claim that YOU were exposed to
asbestos-containing product for which FORD is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

If YOU contend that YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which FORD is allegedty
liable, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention.

For the purposes of these interrogatories, “DOCUMENTS” shall have the meaning set
forth in section 250 of the California Evidence Code, and shall include, without limitation, the
original and any non-identical copy of every kind of written, printed, typed, recorded, or graphic
matter, however produced or reproduced, including without limitation all correspondence, letters,
telegrams, messages, memoranda, instructions, inter-office and intra-office memoranda and
communications, and all records, schedules, reports, communications, notes, time cards, personal
expense records, appointment books, purchase orders, contracts, subcontracts, invoices,
statements, bills, checks, vouchers, ledgers, accounts, drawings, graphs, charts, physical models,
photographs and motion pictures (and negatives), phono-records, audio tapes, video tapes, data
compilations from which information can be obtained or translated through detection devices into
reasonably usable form, computer input or output, output, or any other tangible things.
Documents and writings shall also include all drafts of documents or writings defined above and
all non-identical copies of said documents or writings. Handwritten or other markings or notations
of any kind on any copy of a document or writing render it non-identical. Documents and writings
shalt include all parts or portions of a given document or writing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Describe (é.¢., by kind, commercial name, function, color, shape, dimensions, etc.) each of

the specific asbestos-containing products to which YOU contend YOU were exposed and for

which FORD is allegedly liable.

3.

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD

CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which FORD is allegedly liable,
IDENTIFY YOUR employer(s) at the time of such exposure.

INTERROGATORY NO, 8:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which FORD is allegedly liable,
describe as well as YOU are able, the SITE(S) of said exposure.

For the purposes of these interrogatories “SITE(S)” means and includes buildings,
structures, grounds, job sites, locations, and areas where YOU claim YOU were exposed to
asbestos-containing products for which YOU contend FORD is liable.

INTERROGATORY NO, 9:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which defendant FORD is
allegedly liable, describe how YOU were exposed to such products for which FORD is allegedly
liable.

INTERROGATORY No. 10:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which defendant FORD is
allegedly liable, describe any label, writing or identifying markings on or affixed to each asbestos-
containing product for which FORD is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY No. 11:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS for which defendant FORD is
allegedly liable, IDENTIFY all PERSONS who used, installed, removed or disturbed such
asbestos-containing products.

INTERROGATORY No. 12:

Do YOU coniend that FORD is liable to YOU for punitive damages?
INTERROGATORY No. 13:

If YOU contend that FORD is liable to YOU for punitive damages, state all facts

supporting this claim.

~4-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD

MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY No. 14:

IDENTIFY, with sufficient particularity to enable this defendant to request production, all
DOCUMENTS which support YOUR claim for punitive damages.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

IDENTIFY by name, address and telephone number all PERSON(s) who have knowledge
or information supporting YOUR claim for punitive damages.
INTERROGATORY No. 16:

IDENTIFY all COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR claim for punitive damages.

For the purposes of these interrogatories, “COMMUNICATIONS” means the act or fact of
communicating between or among any persons, including telephone conversations, letters,
memoranda, notes, summaries, photographs, motion pictures, audio tapes, video tapes, or other
materials or memorials of communication, meetings or any occasion of joint or mutual presence,
as well as the transfer of any document or writing from one person to another.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD acted negligently in this matter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

IDENTIFY, with sufficient particularity to enable this defendant to request production, all
DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention that FORD acted negligently in this matter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

IDENTIFY by name, address and telephone number all PERSONS who have knowledge
or information that supports YOUR contention that FORD acted negligently in this matter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Are YOU pursuing a “market share” theory of liability, as enunciated in Sindell v. Abbott
Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d 588, and Wheeler v. Raybestos-Manhattan (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th
1152?

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
If YOU are pursuing a “market share” theory of liability, IDENTIFY each defendant

against whom YOU are pursuing a “market share” theory.

-5-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD

MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO, 22:

For each defendant against whom YOU are pursuing a “market share” theory, IDENTIFY
each “product” which is the subject of YOUR “market share” claim.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

For each product which is the subject of YOUR “market share” claim, IDENTIFY what
YOU contend to be the relevant geographical area for purposes of YOUR “market share” theory

of liability.

‘TERROGA TORY NO. 24:

Do YOU contend that YOU have included in this lawsuit a substantial share of the
producers of asbestos-containing friction products for the years YOU were allegedly exposed to
such products?

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 24 is in the affirmative, please state all facts to
support YOUR contention that YOU have included in this lawsuit a substantial share of the
producers of asbestos-containing friction products for the years YOU were allegedly exposed to
such products.

INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 24 is in the affirmative, please IDENTIFY all
DOCUMENTS to support YOUR contention that YOU have included in this lawsuit a substantial
share of the producers of asbestos-containing friction products for the years YOU were allegedly
exposed to such products,

INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 24 is in the affirmative, please [IDENTIFY all
PERSONS who can support YOUR contention that YOU have included in this lawsuit a
substantial share of the producers of asbestos-containing friction products for the years YOU were

allegedly exposed to such products.

-6-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INFERROGATORIES, SET ONE27
28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENOLLP
ATTORNEYS ATLAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

Please state the market share of each defendant YOU allege produced a share of the market
for asbestos containing friction products during each year in which YOU were exposed to asbestos
from such products.

INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

Please state for each such year all facts which YOU base YOUR calculation of the market
share of each defendant included in the market for asbestos-containing friction products as YOU
allege in YOUR Complaint.

INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

Please IDENTIFY for each such year afl DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base YOUR
calculation of the market share of each defendant included in the market for asbestos-containing
friction products as alleged in YOUR Complaint.

INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

Please IDENTIFY for each such year all PERSONS with any knowledge to support YOUR
calculation of the market share of each defendant in the market for asbestos-containing friction
products as alleged in YOUR Complaint.

INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

Please state the total amount of economic damages were sustained as a result of YOUR
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

Please IDENTIFY each and every DOCUMENT that YOU believe supports the amounts
of damages referred to in Interrogatory No. 32.

INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

Please IDENTIFY the name or names of the defendant(s) with which YOU have settled in
this action.

INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
For each defendant identified in response to Interrogatory No. 34, please state the amount

each defendant has agreed to pay.

-J-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES. SET ONEwo ND

28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD

MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

If YOU were deposed in any asbestos-related matter (other than the present action),
including, but not limited to, Workers Compensation Appeals Board matters, for each such
deposition please state the date of the deposition, the name of the court reporter(s), the court and
action number of the involved matter, and whether YOU were deposed as a witness or party.
INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

Please IDENTIFY the name and the case number at the Workers Compensation Appeals
Board, and any and all written Workers Compensation claims and/or demands made by YOU.
INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

For each Workers Compensation claim identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory
No, 37, provide the name, street address, including city, state and zip code, and telephone number
of YOUR employer at the time of injury.

INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

State all facts supporting YOUR contention that FORD impliedly warranted its products to
be safe for their intended use.
INTERROGATORY NO. 40:

IDENTIFY by name, address and telephone number ail PERSONS who have knowledge
or information supporting YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 39.

INTERROGATORY NO. 41:

IDENTIFY, with sufficient particularity to enable this defendant to request production, all
DOCUMENTS which support YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 39.

INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

IDENTIFY all COMMUNICATIONS which support YOUR response to Interrogatory
No. 39.

INTERROGATORY NO. 43:
State ail facts supporting YOUR aflegation in YOUR complaint that representations by

FORD were false and untrue and that FORD knew at the time that they were untrue.

-8-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE.28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AP LAW

INTERROGATORY No, 44;

Do YOU contend that YOU, YOUR representative or YOU purchased ASBESTOS
directly from FORD?
INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

State all facts supporting YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 44.
INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

IDENTIFY the dates of all purchases of asbestos-containing products YOU allege YOU,
YOUR representative or YOU purchased from FORD.
INTERROGA TORY NO. 47:

For each date listed in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 46, IDENTIFY the location
where the asbestos-containing product(s) was alleged purchased from FORD.

ERROGATORY NO. 48:

For each date listed in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 46, IDENTIFY the product(s)

allegedly purchased from FORD to which YOU allege YOU were exposed to.
‘TERROGATORY NO, 49:

For each product listed in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 47, IDENTIFY the
GENERIC NAME of the products.

For the purposes of this interrogatory, “GENERIC NAME” means the common industry
name for the product. Examples include, but are not limited to: brake pad, brake shoe, brake
lining, disc brake pad, clutch.

INTERROGATORY NO. 50:

For each product listed in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 47, IDENTIFY THE
PRODUCT.

For the purposes of this interrogatory, “IDENTIFY THE PRODUCT” means to describe
each material, including its attributes of shape, dimensions (length, width and depth), weight,

texture, feel, color, labels, writings and markings.

9.

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO, 51:

For each product listed in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 47, DESCRIBE any label,
writing or identifying markings on or affixed to each product.
INTERROGATORY NO, 52:

For each date listed in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 47, IDENTIFY all PERSONS
who witnessed all purchases of asbestos-containing products from FORD.
INTERROGATORY NO. 53:

For each PERSON listed in YOUR preceding interrogatory response, state all information
YOU know each PERSON to possess which supports YOUR contention that YOU, YOUR agent
or representative, or anyone acting on YOUR behalf purchased ASBESTOS directly from FORD.
INTERROGATORY NO. 54:

IDENTIFY the dates of each exposure to asbestos-containing products purchased from
FORD or for which YOU contend FORD is liable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 55:

Describe with precision the activities that YOU were performing at the time that YOU

were exposed to asbestos-containing products for which YOU contend FORD is liable. Possible

activities include, but are not limited to: cutting, grinding, drilling, milling, sanding, filing, cutting,
turning, or bonding of asbestos containing materials, cleaning of brake drums, or any other
potentially dust producing operations carried out by hand or machine.
INTERROGATORY NO. 56:

IDENTIFY by name, address and telephone number ali PERSONS who have knowledge
or information supporting YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 55.
INTERROGATORY NO. 57:

IDENTIFY, with sufficient particularity to enable this defendant to request production, all
DOCUMENTS which support YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 55.
INTERROGATORY NO. 58:

DESCRIBE, with sufficient particularity, the procedures YOU used to remove any

[accumulated asbestos-containing dust.

-10-
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP.

ACrORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO, 59:

DESCRIBE with sufficient particularity the type and style of any protective clothing
and/or respiration equipment YOU used when working with materials believed to have contained
asbestos.

INTERROGATORY NO. 60:

Do YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS as the result of a clutch YOU
contend was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD?
INTERROGATORY NO, 61:

State all facts supporting YOUR contention that the clutch YOU contend exposed YOU to
ASBESTOS was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD.

INTERROGATORY NO. 62:

IDENTIFY by name, address and telephone number all PERSONS who have knowledge
or information supporting YOUR contention that the clutch YOU contend exposed YOU to
ASBESTOS was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD
INTERROGATORY NO. 63:

IDENTIFY, with sufficient particularity to enable this defendant to request production, all
DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention that the clutch YOU contend exposed YOU to
ASBESTOS was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD.

INTERROGATORY NO, 64:

Do YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS as the result of a brake assembly
YOU contend was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD?

INTERROGATORY NO, 65:

State all facts supporting YOUR contention that the brake assembly YOU contend exposed
YOU to ASBESTOS was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD.

INTERROGATORY NO. 66:

IDENTIFY by name, address and telephone number all PERSONS who have knowledge
or information supporting YOUR contention that the brake assembly YOU contend exposed YOU
to ASBESTOS was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD.

<1.
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law

INTERROGATORY NO. 67:

IDENTIFY, with sufficient particularity to enable this defendant to request production, ail
DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention that the brake assembly YOU contend exposed
YOU to ASBESTOS was defectively MANUFACTURED by FORD.

INTERROGATORY NO. 68:

For each vehicle that YOU contend exposed YOU to ASBESTOS, IDENTIFY the
PERSON from whom the vehicles was obtained from.

INTERROGATORY NO. 69:

For each vehicle that YOU contend exposed YOU to ASBESTOS, IDENTIFY the
vehicle’s mileage at the time the vehicle was first acquired by YOU or YOU.
INTERROGATORY NO. 70:

IDENTIFY by name, title, address and telephone number all PERSON(S) other than
attorneys who assisted YOU in answering these special interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO, 71:

IDENTIFY afl DOCUMENTS which YOU have reviewed and which assisted YOU in
preparing YOUR responses herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 72:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Negligence.
INTERROGATORY NO, 73:

IDENTIFY all witnesses who support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for
Negligence.

INTERROGATORY NO. 74:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that FORD is liabie to YOU

for Negligence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
State all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Strict

Liability.

~12-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONEwa

28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP

Arsoeneys aT Law

INTERROGATORY NO. 76:

IDENTIFY all witnesses who support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for
Strict Liability.

INTERROGATORY NO. 77:

IDENTIFY ali DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU
for Strict Liability.
INTERROGATORY NO, 78:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Failure to
Warn.

INTERROGATORY NO. 79:

IDENTIFY all witnesses who support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for
Failure to Warn.

INTERROGATORY NO, 80:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU
for Failure to Warn.
INTERROGATORY No. 81;

If YOU contend FORD is liable to YOU under the theory of Premises Liability, please
state all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU under the theory of
Premises Liability.

INTERROGATORY NO. 82;

If YOU contend FORD is liable to YOU under the theory of Premises Liability, please
IDENTIFY all witnesses who support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU under the
theory of Premises Liability.

INTERROGATORY NO. 83:

If YOU contend FORD is liable to YOU under the theory of Premises Liability, please

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU under

the theory of Premises Liability.

“13+

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONEOo I A

28

LANKFORD

CRAWFORD.
MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 84:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Loss of
Consortium. :

INTERROGATORY NO. 85:

IDENTIFY ali witnesses who support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for
Loss of Consortium.

INTERROGATORY NO. 86:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU
for Loss of Consortium.
INTERROGATORY NO, 87:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to ASBESTOS from a product purchased or obtained
from a FORD dealership, please IDENTIFY the dealership.
INTERROGATORY NO, 88:

For each dealership YOU IDENTIFY in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 87, please
describe (i.e., by kind, commercial name, function, color, shape, dimensions, etc.) each of the
specific asbestos-containing products to which YOU contend was purchased or obtained from that
FORD dealership.

INTERROGATORY NO. 89:

For each dealership YOU IDENTIFY in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 87, please
state if YOU contend FORD is liable for the ACTS of that dealership. The term “ACTS” also
includes an omission.

INTERROGATORY NO. 90:

For each dealership YOU contend FORD is liable for, please state all facts which supports

this contention.
INTERROGATORY No. 91:
For each dealership YOU contend FORD is liable for, IDENTIFY by name, address and

telephone number all PERSONS who have knowledge or information supporting this contention.

-14-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD.
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP

AvroRMeYs AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 92:

For each dealership YOU contend FORD is liable for, IDENTIFY, with sufficient
particularity to enabie this defendant to request production, all DOCUMENTS which support this
contention,

INTERROGATORY No. 93:

Do YOU contend FORD is liable to YOU for Civil Battery?
INTERROGATORY NO. 94:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Civil Battery, state all facts that support YOUR
contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Civil Battery.
INTERROGATORY NO, 95:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Civil Battery, IDENTIFY all witnesses who
support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Civil Battery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 96:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Civil Battery, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS
that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Civil Battery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 97:

Do YOU contend FORD is liable to YOU for Conspiracy?

INTERROGATORY NO. 98:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Conspiracy, IDENTITY all of the PERSONS
engaged in the conspiracy (i.e.: co-conspirators).

INTERROGATORY NO. 99:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Conspiracy, state ali facts that support YOUR
contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Conspiracy.

INTERROGATORY NO. 100:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Conspiracy, IDENTIFY all witnesses who
support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Conspiracy.

-15-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD

MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS At Law

i

INTERROGATORY NO, 101:

If YOU contend Ford is liable to YOU for Conspiracy, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that
support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for Conspiracy.
INTERROGATORY No, 102:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for False
Representation.
INTERROGATORY NO, 103:

IDENTIFY all witnesses who support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU for
False Representation.
INTERROGATORY NO. 104:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that FORD is liable to YOU
for False Representation.
INTERROGATORY NO. 105:

If YOU have a Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number, please state it,
INTERROGATORY No. 106:

Please state whether YOU are currently a Medicare beneficiary or whether YOU are
currently eligible to receive Medicare benefits:
INTERROGATORY NO. 107:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 100 is “Yes,” please state the date YOU became, or
will become, eligible to receive Medicare benefits
INTERROGATORY NO. 108:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 100 is “Yes,” please state the amount of such
payments to date.
INTERROGATORY No, 109:

Are YOU presently, or have YOU ever been, enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B?

-16-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE.28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD

MORENO LLP
ASTORNEWS ATLAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 110:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 103 is “Yes,” please print the name exactly as it
appears on your SSN or Medicare card and state YOUR Medicare Health Insurance Claim
Number (HCIN).

INTERROGATORY NO. 111:

Do YOU have a spouse that is presently, or has ever been, enrolled in Medicare Part A or
Part B?

INTERROGATORY No, 112:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 105 is “Yes,” please print the name exactly as it
appears on YOUR spouse’s SSN or Medicare card and state YOUR spouse’s Medicare Health
Insurance Claim Number (HCIN).

INTERROGATORY NO. 113:

Do YOU have another covered family member that is presently, or has ever been, enrolled
in Medicare Part A or Part B?

INTERROGATORY NO. 114:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 107 is “Yes,” please print the name exactly as it
appears on YOUR covered family member’s SSN or Medicare card and state YOUR covered
family member’s Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number (HCIN).

INTERROGATORY NO. 115:

Are YOU receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits?
INTERROGATORY NO. 116:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 109 is “Yes,” please state the date you began
receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.
INTERROGATORY NO. 117:

Do YOU have end-stage renal disease (kidney failure) or Lou Gehrig’s disease?

-17-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE.28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP
‘ATTORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO. 118:

If YOU claiming YOU were exposed prior to December 5, 1980 to asbestos contained in a
product manufactured by Ford, please describe the nature of YOUR claimed exposure and date(s)
of YOUR claimed exposure.

INTERROGATORY NO, 119:

If YOU claiming YOU were exposed prior to December 5, 1980 to asbestos present at any
facility owned, operated or controlled by Ford, please describe the location(s) and nature of
YOUR claimed exposure and the date(s) of YOUR claimed exposure.

INTERROGATORY NO, 120:

If YOU claiming YOU were exposed on or after December 5, 1980 to asbestos contained
in a product manufactured by Ford, please describe the nature of YOUR claimed exposure and the
date(s) of YOUR claimed exposure.

INTERROGATORY NO. 121:

If YOU claiming YOU were exposed on or after December 5, 1980 to asbestos present at
any facility owned, operated or controlled by Ford, please describe the location(s) and nature of
YOUR claimed exposure and the date(s) of YOUR claimed exposure.

INTERROGATORY No. 122:

Have YOU received trom the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), its
agents and/or contractors any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR MEDICARE
BENEFICIARY STATUS?

The phrase, “DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR MEDICARE BENEFICIARY
STATUS” includes all DOCUMENTS described in section 250 of the California Evidence Code
including, “Rights and Responsibilities Letter (RAR),” “Conditional Payment Letter (CPL)”
and/or “Final Demand Letter.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 123:
lf YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos-containing thermal insulation, please

IDENTIFY THE EXPOSURE.

-18-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE.28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP

ATTORNBYS aT LAW

For the purposes of these interrogatories, “IDENTIFY THE EXPOSURE” means to
identify the location, YOUR employer, the date and duration of the exposure and brand name,
manufacturer or supplier of the thermal! insulation product YOU contend exposure therefrom.
INTERROGATORY NO, 124:

If YOU contend YOU were exposed to amphibole type asbestos fiber, please IDENTIFY
THE EXPOSURE.

INTERROGATORY NO. 125:

Please state the Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) for each vehicle YOU contend
FORD is liable for with respect to YOUR claim of asbestos exposure.

INTERROGATORY NO. 126:

Please state the Gross Vehicle Weight for each vehicle YOU contend FORD is liable for
with respect to YOUR claim of asbestos exposure.
INTERROGATORY NO, 127:

Tf YOU contend YOU were exposed to asbestos from sources other than FORD, please
IDENTIFY THE EXPOSURE.

INTERROGATORY NO. 128:

State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD manufactured any component on UPS
package cars YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around.
INTERROGATORY No. 129:

State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD supplied any component on UPS
package cars YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around.
INTERROGATORY No, 130:

State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD designed any component on UPS
package cars YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around.

INTERROGATORY NO. 131:
State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD manufactured any component on

vehicles YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around at Federal Express.

-19-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONEYD WwW Bw Ww

28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD

MORENO LLP
ATUORNEYS AT LAW

INTERROGATORY NO, 132:

State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD supplied any component on vehicles

YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around at Federal Express.
INTERROGATORY NO. 133:
State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD designed any component on vehicles
‘YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around at Federal Express.
INTERROGATORY NO. 134:

} State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD manufactured any component on
vehicles YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around at East Bay Regional Parks.
INTERROGATORY NO. 135:

State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD supplied any component on vehicles
YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around at East Bay Regional Parks.
INTERROGATORY NO. 136:
State all facts supporting YOUR claim that FORD designed any component on vehicles
YOU contend DECEDENT worked on or around at East Bay Regional Parks.
INTERROGATORY NO. 137:
State all facts supporting YOUR claim that Rosita Pique was legally married to Decedent.
INTERROGATORY NO. 138:
State the date Rosita Pique became legally married to Decedent.
INTERROGATORY NO. 139:
IDENTIFY the PERSON who married Rosita Pique to Decedent.
Dated: May 18, 2011 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP
By:
Paul, LANNUS
Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

-20-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONECo ew I a

28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP
ATTORNEYS at LAW

DECLARATION OF PAUL LANNUS
IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

J, Paul Lannus, declare:

1. I am an attorney of record for defendant, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a party to
this action.

2. Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY is propounding to plaintiff the attached set
of special interrogatories.

3. This set of special interrogatories will cause the total number of interrogatories
propounded to plaintiff to exceed the number of special interrogatories permitted by paragraph (1)
of subdivision (c) of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4, This set of interrogatories contains a total of 139 special interrogatories.

3. T am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the
parties in the case.

6. T have personally examined each of the questions in this set of special
interrogatories.

7. This number of questions is warranted under section 2030.040, et seq. of the Code
of Civil Procedure due to the complexity or quantity of the existing or potential issues in this case
and the expedience of using this method of discovery is to provide to the responding party the
opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation or search of files or records to supply the
information sought. These additional requests are required due to the number of sites, vehicles,
sources of replacement parts, exposure allegations and theories of liability and damages at issue in
this case. Such requests are necessary for the preparation of dispositive motions and trial. Such
requests are also necessary to comply with Medicare Secondary Payer Statute.

4

i

i

i

21.

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE28

LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT Law

8. None of the interrogatories in this set of special interrogatories are being
propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to
whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 18th day of May, 2011

at Walnut Creek, California,

PAUL LANNUS

-22-

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY LEXISNEXIS FILE AND SERVE

2

3 I, Teresa DeLillo, declare as follows:

4 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. [ am employed in the County
5 | of Contra Costa, State of California by LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. My business
6 lladdress is 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.

7 On May 18, 2011, [ electronically served the document via LexisNexis File & Serve

8 | described as:

9 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY

0 PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

! | on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
2 | Website.
3 T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

4 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 18, 2011, at Walnut Creek, California.

/S/ Teresa L. DeLillo
Teresa L. DeLillo

28
23

Coen DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

MORENO LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAWBRAYTONSPURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

POBOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169.

(445) 898-1555

0 oe YD HW BY BW we

BN WR NY NR DN ee o moe

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
DAVID R, DONADIO, ESQ., SB, #154436
JUSTIN S. FISH, ESQ., S.B. #250282
BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O, Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-08-274659

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR
COMPANY'S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir,
and as Successor-in-Interest to
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and
MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY
PIQUE, FREDERICK. PIQUE, as Legal
Heirs of GODOFREDO PIQUE, , Deceased,

os )
Plaintiffs, )
vs.
DANA COMPANIES, LLC (FKA DANA }
CORPORATION); Defendants as

Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the )

Summary Complaint herein; and DOES ;
1-8500.

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (Hereinafter, “FORD”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: _ Plaintiffs ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as
Successor-in-Interest to GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and
MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE, FREDERICK
PIQUE, as Legal Heirs af GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased
(hereinafter, “plaintiff”)

SET NO.: ONE

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Yes.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-
client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it violates C.C.P, §§ 2034.210 and 2034.220 to the extent that
defendant seeks documents and information relating to consultants, expert testimony, expert

‘KAnjured\09505\pld\rog-rsp-amend-PORD.wpd 1 és}SCS eo YN Dw RB BW NY

Boe ee ee ee
© e222 aE OPO Ss

witnesses and/or documents in the possession of any such consultants or experts. Plaintiff
objects that this Interrogatory seeks documents equally available to, or already in the possession,
of, defendant FORD, and is therefore harassing, burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to various terms and phrases,
including, but not limited to and “exposed”smaking @Tesponse impossible without speculation
as to its meaning.

Subject to and without waiving said objections and privileges, plaintiff responds as
follows; Plaintiff contends that decedent's exposure to asbestos as a result of defendant was a
substantial factor is causing and contributing to decedent's total dose as defined in Rutherford v.
Owens-Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th. 953. Rutherford states, "In an asbestos-related cancer case,
the plaintiff need not prove that fibers from the defendant's product were the ones, or among the
ones, that actually began the * process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the plaintiff may
meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendants product was a substantial factor causing
the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor
contributing to the plaintiff's or decedent's risk of developing cancer. The jury should be so
instructed." (Id., emphasis added, at 982-983.) Plaintiff's experts will testify that decedent's
asbestos-related clinical disease responses were caused by the total proven, ascertainable dose
of asbestos of every type and instance in his history, which given sufficient minimum latency
for the fundamental yet individually susceptible biology to obtain represents for trial a
"substantial factor,” as defined in Rutherford. Decedent was a Journeyman Mechanic for United
Parcel Service (UPS) in Oakland from 1979-1988 (v1, 7/23/08, p110:1-14) where he did
preventative maintenance on the delivery trucks which included FORDS on a daily basis. He
received training from FORD in Pleasanton, California. (v5, 8/14/08, p791:24-792:14) Asa
mechanic for UPS, decedent was in charge of a fleet of 36 delivery trucks and worked in a
facility with eight repair bays. All of the work was done inside the shop. (v5, 8/14/08,
p798:4-10), There were no fans or windows and only roll-up doors. (v5, 8/14/08, p800:11-21)
The majority of the trucks in the fleet were FORDs. (v5 8/14/08, p763:16-764:8) Preventative
maintenance included inspections of the delivery trucks’ brakes and clutches. (vl, 7/23/08,
p140:24-141:16) Decedent would inspect the drum brakes on each truck approximately every
3,000 miles. (v5, 8/14/08, p719:17-720:12) Decedent remembers replacing the original brakes
at least a few times in the early part of his career at UPS and twice in the last half of his career
at UPS. (v2, 7/24/08, p126:4-18) Decedent testified that he used compressed air to blow out the
old dust. (7/23/08, v1, p110:1-113:23) UPS kept records so decedent knew he was working on
FORDs. (v1, 7/23/08, p114: 6-10)

Decedent replaced the clutches if an inspection showed that the clutch needed to be
replaced. Decedent inspected the clutch as part of his routine inspections or when a driver
complained about their clutch at the end of the day. When decedent inspected the clutch, he
removed the inspection cover, which exposed decedent to the accumulated dust in the clutch
assembly. (v2, 7/24/08, p140:24-141 “16). Decedent recalls removing the original clutch in a
FORD delivery truck on at least two occasions during the early part of his career at UPS. (v5,
8/14/08, p775:4-19 and v2, 7/24/08, p144:12-145:6) There was a lot of dust when Decedent
replaced the clutch. (v2, 7/24/08, p130:17-131:1).

Decedent also remembers changing the original gaskets on FORD trucks while working
for UPS. Decedent was also near mechanics who replaced original gaskets (v5, 8/14/08,
p782:4-783:20) while decedent was working for UPS. (v5, 8/14/08, p773:14-22)

Decedenit also knows that he replaced original brakes, clutches, and gaskels because new
FORD trucks were purchased and added to his fleet while decedent was working at UPS. (v5,
8/14/08; p764:17-24)

cedent sometimes worked as close as three feet (v6, 8/15/08, p878:9-25) from other
mechanics who performed similar preventative maintenance. (v5, 8/14/08, p782:4-783:20)

Decedent worked as a mechanic for the East Bay Regional Parks District in Oakland,
California, from 1990-2008. Decedent worked on FORD Crown Victorias, 1984 FORD L8000
sanitation trucks and pickups. (v2, 7/24/08, p163:21-164:9 and v6, 8/15/08, p955:10-21)
Decedent replaced the brakes, and he used compressed air to remove dust during the

KNnjured\10950Sipldog-rsp-amend-FORD.wpd 2 agwe NY DH BY NH GE

Nn NY YY YY NRN ee =
e2 rao 8 FB S8 2 FS Sei gaaEDH ZS

lacement process. (v6, 8/15/08, P945:13-25) Decedent purchased replacement brakes for the
FORD Crown Victorias at a FORD Paris dealer, because the mechanics only put FORD parts on
the FORD Crown Victorias. (v6, 8/15/08, p947:20-23) Decedent testified that he did mostly
brake work at East Bay Regional Parks and did a lot of brake work where he removed original
brakes from the police FORD Crown Victorias and installed new FORD brakes on them. @2,
1/24/08, p164:22-165:18) Decedent sanded the replacement brakes prior to installation. (v6,
8/15/08, p1003:17-1004:2) Decedent also knows the parts were original because these vehicles
were hased new while decedent was employed at this job site. Gs 8/15/08, p944:19-945:5)
Decedent further knows the brakes he first removed from FORD vehicles were original because
decedent reviewed the work history on each car prior to any maintenance or repair. Decedent
testified that he removed the original brakes from the 1984 FORD L8000 sanitation trucks (v6,
8/15/08, p$56:4-17) two times. He also installed new FORD brakes on the FORD L8000's that
were purchased from the FORD dealer. (v6, 8/15/08, p957:8-24) Decedent testified that he also
removed and installed FORD brakes on the FORD pickups a few times. (v6, 8/15/08,
posal 3) Decedent testified that some brakes were purchased from East Bay FORD. (v6,

5/15/08, p957:16-958:5)

Decedent worked very close to other mechanics who were doing the same work. (v2,
7/24/08, p167:20-168:3) Decedent testified that the work conditions were dirty and dusty. (v2,
7/24/08, p168:5-8) and everybody did the cleanup. (v2, 7/24/08, p168:10-13)

Decedent’s work around asbestos-containing original equipment manufactured,
assembled, sold and/or supplied by FORD caused respitable fibers of asbestos to be released
and inhaled by decedent, causing him injury. Decedent never saw or received any warnings
from FORD that the materials and parts others in his presence handled were dangerous or that
he should use respiratory protection. Defendant FORD knew or should have known that its
asbestos-containing products, would be handled, disturbed, repaired, maintained, and
manipulated by foreseeable users in such a manner as to result in the release of airborne
asbestos fibers. Defendant had a duty to warn decedent and other consumers of dangers
inherent in its asbestos-containing friction products, including those described above, and a duty
to appropriately label said products, as well as other duties which were all breached by
defendant.

Under California law, an otherwise faultlessly made article may be deemed defective if
the manufacturer fails to warn of dangerous propensities. Brake assemblies collect dust,
including asbestos dust released from brake linings during use. Defendant manufactured
braking systems designed only to use asbestos pads and specifically specified asbestos
replacement parts. The braking system actively grinds the solid brake pad into a pile of
respirable dust which collects in the drum to be encountered on a regular basis in the ordinary
course of routine maintenance and inspection - it is in essence a delivery device of exposure and
therefore creates the risk in combination with the asbestos brake pad. Ifa vehicle is equipped
with a dust shield, designed to protect the brake assembly ftorn water and dirt thrown up from
the road surface while driving, dust which would otherwise be cleared from the brake assembly
by air circulation will remain on the brake assembly, Defendant should have warned decedent
that because of the propensity of brake drums to collect dust, cleaning the brake assembly
exposed decedent to hazardous asbestos fibers,

That decedent was exposed to asbestos by FORD is verified by FORD admitting in its
General Order No.129 Interrogatory 31 dated 06-09-08: “Ford believes that asbestos-containing
friction components were incorporated into its vehicles since it began selling mass production
vehicles in the early 1900s, By 1993, the only vehicles in which asbestos-continuing friction
products were still used were low-volume limousine applications and the Mustang. The use of
asbestos-containing friction components in the Mustang was discontinued for the 1995 mode}
year and in limousines for the 1997 model year. Certain asbestos-containing service parts for
older model years vehicles were available until 2001, through franchised Ford dealerships and
FORD Authorized distributors.” Plaintiff also cites to the following testimony of Albert
Rocker, Person Most Knowledgeable for FORD, given on August 10, 2006 in Parsons v, Ford
Motor Company, Case # 05-12959(27) for the proposition that decedent was exposed to
asbestos by FORD, FORD knew their friction products were asbestos-containing, and warned

K Mnjured\109$0S\pld\ag-rsp-amend-FORD-wpd 3 xjtheir own people, but failed to warm anyone else: 10:3-21, 11:29-12:3, 12:23-13:1, 14:3-15:3,
16:20-24, 17:10-24, 19:14-16, 19:20-22:5, 23:7-21, 52:21-53:9, $4:22-55:13, 56:4-12, 57:13-
18, 59:1-8, 60:2-16, 61:1-8, 66:2-24, 67:25-68:6, 68:12-23, 69:3-72:5, 73:3-5, 74:10-23, 76:10-
23, 79:10-80-1, 81:6-17, 82:16-83:1, 85:3-10, 88:13-89:10, 90:11-18, 93:16-94:4, 95:24-96:8,

96:21-97:7, 99:8-100:3, 110:9-25, 114:3-117:4, 137:11-18, 139:6-12, 139:25-141:5, 142:20-23,
143:21-144:11, 144:21-145:20, 149:5-150:2, 158:8-16, 181:13-182:5, 182:15-25, 183:6-186:8,
187:21-190;1, 193:17-194:15, and 195:1-6,

Decedent was sxpased to asbestos by FORD because Mark Taylor (Person Most
Knowled; le for FO : taken on December 15, 2009 in Toole v. Georgia-Pacific e 47,
lines 16-21), reported by on Renaissance Court Reporters, testified that FORD sold
asbestos-containing friction materials as replacement parts until 2001, Also, in DOD
Hazardous Materials Information System document #132105 dated July 1998 re: FORD’s
brake linings on page 4 states the health hazard to include mesothelioma and to change clothing
to avoid carrying dust particles into other areas.

ased on defendant FORD’s responses and all supplemental or amended responses to
Standard Asbest