Preview
LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP.
AYTORNEYS AF EAW
PAUL V. LANKFORD (State Bar No. 181506)
plankford@Iclaw.com
PAUL LANNUS (State Bar No. 192551) ELECTRONICALLY
plannus@lelaw.com
LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP sopehr IL ED.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 600 County of San Francisco
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 JAN 25 2012
Telephone: 925.300.3520 Clerk of the Court
Facsimile: 925.300.3386 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk
Attomeys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir, ASBESTOS
and as Successor-In-Interest to
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and Case No, CGC 08-274659
MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY
PIQUE, FREDERICK PIQUE, as Legal DECLARATION OF PAUL LANNUS IN SUPPORT
Heirs of GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased, OF Motion JN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE AND
PREVENT ANY ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO
Plaintiff, THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF RALPH A,
FROEHLICH
v. [MIL #37]
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P),
Defendants.
1, PAUL LANNUS, declare as follows:
1. Tam a member of the State Bar of California and an attorney with LANKFORD
CRAWFORD MORENO LLP, counsel of record for Defendant in the above action. I have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and
would testify competently to such facts under oath.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the April 26, 2000,
Agreed Protective Order in Terry v. Conrad, et al. (Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery
County, Ohio, Case No. 98-893) prohibiting all depositions taken in that case—including the
Froehlich deposition——from being used in any other case.28
LANKFORD
CRAWFORD
MORENO LLP.
AYTORNEYS AF EAW
3, Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the July 6, 2000 Order
in Terry v. Conrad, et al. (Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Ohio, Case No. 98-
893), enforcing the order attached as Exhibit A.
4, Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts of the
Deposition Testimony/A ffidavit of Ralph Froehlich.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript
excerpts from Rump v. Allied Signal, et al., Case No. GD 04-06944, Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript
excerpts from Moore v. Allied Signal, Case No. GD 05-3941, Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an Order in Mclver v.
Pneumo Abex Corporation, et al., Case No. A.D. 2004-176, Court of Common Pleas of Crawford
County, Pennsylvania.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript
excerpts from Mallia v. Ford Motor Co., et al., Case No. 04-16237 CA 42, Dade County Circuit
Court, State of Florida.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript
excerpts from Holbrook v. Saberhagen Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 05-2-06952-0 SEA,
Superior Court of King County, Washington.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 14th day of December 2011, at Walnut Creek, California.
PAUL LANNUS
-2
THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF RALPH A. FROEHLICH
[MIL #37)EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT AOCS, 26.2002” $: 1PM S4FM $7 THOMPSON & KNTGRT
Ge we
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHO
CIVIL DIVISION
aN
BETTY L, TERRY, + Case No, 98.893 .
Plaid, + Judge Pamick J. Foley
VE. fy :
CJAMESCONRAD, | + AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND r
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, etal,
Defendants, ‘
Pocsuant to Civil Role 26(C) end stipulation of the parties, the Court heey anders thar
documents and other information exchanged during the course of discovery be Contidential aginst
vamteessary disclosure in the following manner; /
, , 1 This Order shall govern all information and materials produced by ar obtained «
from any witness and party in this accion (including, but not limited tn, information obuined ftom and
Cocuments produced pursuant tp Civil Rules 33, 34 or 45, answers to Fequests for admissicus, answers to
interrogatories, deposition ranscipt: znd interviews of ‘Witnesses, including former employees of GM),
all information contained in those materials, and all copies, excerpts or sumumaries of those materials,
and any notes or related documents containing the infarmstion ("Confidential Matesis!"),
. 2 Confidential Material may be'used solely forthe purpose of this litigation, and
pot for any business ar other Purpose, Confidential Materist may be disclosed only to the following
esons:
Tate Cour and any cours to which en apes a this action might iOCT. 24, 20088 3:11PM" 37 THOMPSON & KNIGHT 214 969175! YO, 7388 6
T4200
Ww w
(i) The pares and legnl counsel! for the parties in this action and their
employees and siafS,
Gi) Outside vendors who petform microfiching, photocopying, eormputt
classification or similar clerical functions, but only for so long as necestary to perform
those servicos; and
Gy) Court reporters und other persons engaged in preparing transcripls cf
resimmony or hearings for this ection
1. Way party should conclade that partisular Comfidentia) Material should not be
treated. as confidential thea itmay so notify the producing party in writing and state the basis for that ‘
conclusion. Within seven days of its receipt of tbat notice, the producing party shall notify the other
. party in writing whether it insists on the material being treeted as coofideatial and as specified im this
Order, If the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the status of that material, then the partica
shall continue to treatit as designated and 1 use itonty in the mamer authorized by this Order unless
and until this Court rules thar it may be treated otherwise,
4 Any deposition tumsccipt, plesding, motion, memorandum of other paper filed
with the Court which includes or discloses any Confidential Material shall be identified with the words, ~
“Confidential — Resisted Access Purmant to Court Order* gad shell be filed md maintained wnder seal
wntll further order of Bais Court Filing the document under seal chall not bar amy of the parties from
unrestricted use or dissemination of those portions of the document which da pot contain Confidential ©
Material. .
. 5, Nothing in this Order shall be deemed in any way to restrict the use of
documents or information which z party lawfully obtains independently, whether or aot the same
materia) is also obtained through formal discovery in the action.
. 6. Nothing in this Order shall constitute a waiver ofa party's right to object to the
production of any Confidential Material or to demand more stringent restrictions upon the treatment and
disclosure of ony Confidential Material on the ground that it conmins pardeulerly sensitive information.
2OCT. 24 20024 4: 11PHEAEH 37 THOMPSON A KNIGHT 214 9651751 mC. 7888 v2 2
Oe ow w
wf Nollzing in thls Order shall timait or affect the right of party to disclose or to
authorize dieclonae of Confidential Material produced by that porty. Amy pany may apply to the Court
for modification of this Ordcr at eny ime,
8 Restrictions on the use or disclosure of Confidenris! Materia! es specified in this
Order shall continue during any tial or bearing in this care, The use of Confidential Material as -
evidence at ial or hearing in this case shall be subject to such protection ax the Court shall det=ming pt
the time,
% Nolte ny days arb nape er impel al julpnent or
senlement of this action, all Confidcatial Material ‘(including all saris, cxtracts and summsrics) shall be
destroyed by shredding. or buming or be returned to the Producing party. No patty or ita counse! may
retain copies of any Confidentin} Material more than thiny dys after the uneppesied or unappeclable .
final judgment cr setlement of this ection,
: 10. Neither the urination af this actioa nor the texmination of employment of any
person ike bad access to eny Confidential Material shall relieve any person frum the obligation of
maintaining both the confidentiality end the restrictions om use of anything disclosed pursuant to this
, Ue Nothing in this Order shall ber or otherwise restrict eny attorney from rendering
advice to his or her clicat with respect to thia action and, in the couse of giving such advice, fom
referring to or relying generally upon his or her examination of ‘Confidential Material. However, in
tendering any Such advice or in otherwise communicating with his or her client, the attorney shall not
disclose the contents or source of my Confidential Material in ¢ manner contrary tw the tenn of this
Order. ‘OCT. 24. 2002( 3: 11PMR5PM 37 THOMPSON & KNIGHT 214 969:75! fic
Wa WME Ta ee
ear. PAD Tee teen
{. | ’ wv ¥
too .
} | IIS sO ORDERED,
vj | Dated this day of Apu, 2000.
hy
+8
i ..| “hd ~
: | Reviewed and anpreved!
toy
eho
{ 1 lee AV. awl
fj Schenee (0010867)
! dnt Gee ately ay
1 Robert A, Malvishan (0064199) f
i THOMPSGN MINE L LORY ILLF.
i 312 Walma Sues Suite 1400 - -
' i, Ghté 45202 .
| B13) 352-6700
Attomays for DefoulsaVEmplayst
Geneal Motors Corporation
| .
: A=
7 Bevan & Eeononus
4 BED Northfield Rosd
pI Numthficld, Ohio, 44057
{ } + Altarney for Phintiff
4 Beuy Te Texy
i
' t
to
! ware
i ’ tenty toby fis o ba a te
i rd carrest chy,
: Wires nda sis BO
; a oye
ao. . :
ut j - a
iL
|
: | APR-28-00 WED 03547 Px 390 487 aa
boyEXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT BIN THE COURT OF COMMON FLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
BETTY L. TERRY, Y CaseNo, 98-893
Flaint Hf, : Sndge Panick J, Foley
YS, t
C. JAMES CO} , a :
ADMINISTRATOH, BUREAU OF
WORKERS! COMPENSATION AND =-:~—« ENTRY ENFORCING AGREED
INDUSTRIAL CO! SSION, et aly PROTECTIVE ORDER
Cincinnati-Dayton Sttnographic, Inc. sud the Cout’s receipt from Cincinnati-Dayron Stenographic
jer forms for the transcript and videotape of the deposition of Ralph A.
yy makes the following findings:
el for Plaintiff, Thomas Sevan, advised Citcinnsti-Dayton Stenographic on
that the Agreed Protective Onder had beso modified whee, in fact, such order1
reroratjontd conduct constirates & violstion of s the Agreed Protective Order.
LY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: - :
‘end provisions of the Agreed Protective Order dated April 27, 2000 remain
force and effect; :
Prior fo July 10, 2000, Cincinnat!-Dayton Stenographic, Inc, shall disclose to the
Court pnd/or produce to the Court all infarrnation relating to tha sale and disaibution
OF the franseript and videntape of the deposition of Ralph A. Froehlich, including the
om addresgea, telephone. nurnbers of each person receiving the copies and the
dates pf purchase and shipment; : -
Counjel for General Motors shall serve writen natice, long with copies of this
Entryjand the Agreed Protective Onder, on each person identified by Cinciunati-
Daytch Steaographie, Inc. as having received « copy of the transcript of videotape
deposition of Ralph A. Frochlich;
‘Withip 14 days of writen notice having be=n served by counsel for General Motors,
of
as who have received a copy of the transcript or videotape af the deposition
A Frochlieh, whether from Cincinnati-Dayton Stenographic or otherwise:OCT. 24. 2000 3: 12FMgR
Prepared by;
Jane £. Garfinkel
H
37 THOMPSON & KNIGHT 214 969173:
shall tetwn the original and of) dupticare copies of the transccipr and
Videotape to counsel for General Matars Corparatic, Robert A. McMahon,
Thompson Hine & Flory LL?, 312 Walgur Strees, 14% Flocr, Cincinnari, *
Obdo 45202;
shall not retain and shall desmoy any and a documents contziniag
information from the transcript or videotape, including but not limited to, any
Hotes, ewamaries, memarnda and comespondence: and
stall conten in writing to counsel for General Motors that such person has
complied with this court order, hes not retzined or disuibuted any copies of
the wanseript or yideotspe to any perton and, if they have, identity all such
‘petsons by name, address and telephone number and Provide such persops
‘with notice of this court order and the Agreed Protestive Order,
Entered;
HONORABLE PATRICK FOLEY
(oo 10444)
Robert A. McMahon {0064319}
THOMPSON HINE & FLORY LLP
312 Watnnt Street, Sifte 1400
Cincinnati, Obie 4:
(513) 352-6700
~{513) 241-4771 - fax
Attomeys for D. ‘Employes,
General Motors Corpdtation | hately tery wis to by a inl
and correct cop . ,
‘Wiorese ity gand Bile sql ateEXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT CU1DI- 13-2003 19:25 . os oo se PORTE
* SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORIC
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT .
Tn RE: SEVEN 1-L JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
‘This Document Relates To:
Coustance F, Polito, Individually and ag Excoutrix far
‘The Estate of Selvntore T, Potite, . .
Plaintifé
vs > Index #01/008226
. - Monroe Count},
“Anchor Packing Company,
Borg-Warner Corporation, * .
* Caterpillar, [ne., .
+ + DaimlerChrysler Corporation,
Deere & Co.,
Eastman Kodalc Company,
Federal Mogul Products, inc.,
kdn Felt Praducts Mfg, Co.,
Federal Mogul Products, Inc.,
fk/a Moog Aufomotive, Inc.,
as successor by merger to Wagner Electric Corp,
Ford Motor Company,
Carlock; Ino,
General Motors Corporation, ,
Honeywell Com., iflva Allied Signal, Inc.,
as successor by merger Mergenthaler Linotype Company,
IMO Industries, .
Maok Trucks, Inc.,
Maremonnt Corp.
Motion Contcot industries, inc., as
predecessor in interest to Cutlisle Corporation,
Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
Westinghouse Air Brake Company, a/k/a WABCO, Inc.,
Defendants.NOVHSs3-2003 19135
: APPEARANCES:
James C. Long, Jr: Esq. Of Counsel
Evan M, Janush, Bsq., Of Counsel
Weitz & Luxenberg, B.C.
Attomeys for Plaintiff
Bruce §, Huttuer, Esq., Of Counsel
Donohue, Sabo, Varley & Armatrong, P.C.
Attomeys for Defendant, Burns International Services
Corporation Ova Borg-Wamer Corporation,
“Terrance P, Flynn, Esq., Of Counsel
_ Gibson, MeAskill de Crosby LLP
Attorneys for Defendants, DainilerChrysler Corporation,
Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation
Christine O. Boyd, Esq., Of Counsel
Lavin, Coleman, O'Neil, Ricci, Finarelli & Gray
Attomeys for General Motors Corporation
DECISION_ AND ORDER
RAYMOND E. CORNELIUS, J.
‘The Plaintiff, Constance F. Polito, was the spouse of Salvatore T. Polito, who died
Bo3/aa
from mesothelioma, n disease commonly associated with exposure to asbestos. Mir. Polita
hos been described as a former auto mechanic, who allegedly was exposed to asbestos from
friction products, over a number of yerrs, during which time {ic installed and/or repaired
brakes. The remaining Defendants in the case, Burns International Services Corporation
(ida Borg - Warner Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and
General Motors Corporation, were all involved in the manufacturing and/or distribution of
brake products,90-13-2603 . 19:25
POGUE
This action is presently scheduied to proceed fo trlal, and the Defendants have made
a number of inotlons int lintiag ‘o exclude cerinin evidence, which is anticipated to he offered
by Plaintiff. Some of these motions were resolved. 1 by egreement ‘between the parties, and
others were decided by the Court at motion ferm. However, the Court reserved decision c on
fliree of the motions tn lintine, which are decided as hereinafter set forth.
Workers! Compengation Claims.end Plant Conditions
The Defendants acknoveledge that one of the component parts of ‘the finished brake.
products, which were allegedly worked on by Mr. Polito, was asbestos, bonded in rosin and
fully encapsulated within brake casiigs. ‘The motion in limine sceks to preclude Plaindff
* from attempting to offer into evidence, at trial, working conditions at some of the
Defendants’ manufacturing plants, where raw asbestos fibers were inixed, processed and
Incorporated into the brake product, as well ag Worlters! Conzpensation claims muande by
employees of these plants. In essence, the Defendants contend. that such evidence would be
irrelevant to (he question of whether or nol they had or should have bad Inowledge
concerning the adverse health effects associated with end-product users of | asbestos
containing, finished brake products,
In support of the motion in danine, Defendants rely upon the decision In. re: Related
Asbestos Cases, 543 PSupp 1152 (ND CA 1982}, in which the Court excluded documents
pertaining to Warkers' Compensation claims, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. The Court conceded that Workers! Compensation documents are Benerally
relevant to the question of notice, but decided to exclude them from evidence in this case,
3HOU-T3-2003 19:25
, because of the volume of documents, which would present many collateral issues; the :
remoteness In titne of many of the actions; the maltipfictty of [nrisdictionss and a failure to
show whether or not eacl action was settled or adjudleated, and if settled, whether the ease
was settled for anisanee value, However, tu the Stnte of New Yosic, "Evidence of successful
workers! compensation cintms... as well as evidence of ~willseases among asbestos plant
workers" is ndratsefble, at trial, on the issue of a.diefendant's “ulnowledge af thee risks of
asbestos exposare and the reasonableness of its failure to warn the end-nsers of its product
. ofthose risks." (In re: Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigution, 190 AD2d | 008 (ak Dept.
1994}.)
As nforcracntioned, Defendunts contend that Workers! Compensation claims made
by plant workers and/or plant conditions, which may evidence health risks nssociated with
raw asbestos, fs irrelevant to the question of thoir respective Icnowledge of dangers
associated wit the Gnishetl byake product, wiiieh contained asbestos, bonded in reste aud
fully eneapsilated within the bral Ie cusing. An analogous argument was made in Mandowite
¥% Xerox Corp. (169 AD2nd 300 [£" Dept. 1991]), wherein the Defendant unsuccessfully
sought « protective order from a notice of discovery, vequesting claims and Inwsuits
previously led for lujuries ns u result of asbestos exposure to copying equipment, but which
were not limfted fo the particular madels of copiers allegedly operated by Oe decedent. The
Court agreed with the Plaintiffs position "...
Preview
LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. AYTORNEYS AF EAW PAUL V. LANKFORD (State Bar No. 181506) plankford@Iclaw.com PAUL LANNUS (State Bar No. 192551) ELECTRONICALLY plannus@lelaw.com LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP sopehr IL ED. 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 600 County of San Francisco Walnut Creek, CA 94596 JAN 25 2012 Telephone: 925.300.3520 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: 925.300.3386 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk Attomeys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir, ASBESTOS and as Successor-In-Interest to GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased; and Case No, CGC 08-274659 MARLENE SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE, FREDERICK PIQUE, as Legal DECLARATION OF PAUL LANNUS IN SUPPORT Heirs of GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased, OF Motion JN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE AND PREVENT ANY ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO Plaintiff, THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF RALPH A, FROEHLICH v. [MIL #37] ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P), Defendants. 1, PAUL LANNUS, declare as follows: 1. Tam a member of the State Bar of California and an attorney with LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP, counsel of record for Defendant in the above action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the April 26, 2000, Agreed Protective Order in Terry v. Conrad, et al. (Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Ohio, Case No. 98-893) prohibiting all depositions taken in that case—including the Froehlich deposition——from being used in any other case.28 LANKFORD CRAWFORD MORENO LLP. AYTORNEYS AF EAW 3, Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the July 6, 2000 Order in Terry v. Conrad, et al. (Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Ohio, Case No. 98- 893), enforcing the order attached as Exhibit A. 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts of the Deposition Testimony/A ffidavit of Ralph Froehlich. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript excerpts from Rump v. Allied Signal, et al., Case No. GD 04-06944, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript excerpts from Moore v. Allied Signal, Case No. GD 05-3941, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an Order in Mclver v. Pneumo Abex Corporation, et al., Case No. A.D. 2004-176, Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, Pennsylvania. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript excerpts from Mallia v. Ford Motor Co., et al., Case No. 04-16237 CA 42, Dade County Circuit Court, State of Florida. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of relevant transcript excerpts from Holbrook v. Saberhagen Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 05-2-06952-0 SEA, Superior Court of King County, Washington. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 14th day of December 2011, at Walnut Creek, California. PAUL LANNUS -2 THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF RALPH A. FROEHLICH [MIL #37)EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT AOCS, 26.2002” $: 1PM S4FM $7 THOMPSON & KNTGRT Ge we IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHO CIVIL DIVISION aN BETTY L, TERRY, + Case No, 98.893 . Plaid, + Judge Pamick J. Foley VE. fy : CJAMESCONRAD, | + AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND r INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, etal, Defendants, ‘ Pocsuant to Civil Role 26(C) end stipulation of the parties, the Court heey anders thar documents and other information exchanged during the course of discovery be Contidential aginst vamteessary disclosure in the following manner; / , , 1 This Order shall govern all information and materials produced by ar obtained « from any witness and party in this accion (including, but not limited tn, information obuined ftom and Cocuments produced pursuant tp Civil Rules 33, 34 or 45, answers to Fequests for admissicus, answers to interrogatories, deposition ranscipt: znd interviews of ‘Witnesses, including former employees of GM), all information contained in those materials, and all copies, excerpts or sumumaries of those materials, and any notes or related documents containing the infarmstion ("Confidential Matesis!"), . 2 Confidential Material may be'used solely forthe purpose of this litigation, and pot for any business ar other Purpose, Confidential Materist may be disclosed only to the following esons: Tate Cour and any cours to which en apes a this action might iOCT. 24, 20088 3:11PM" 37 THOMPSON & KNIGHT 214 969175! YO, 7388 6 T4200 Ww w (i) The pares and legnl counsel! for the parties in this action and their employees and siafS, Gi) Outside vendors who petform microfiching, photocopying, eormputt classification or similar clerical functions, but only for so long as necestary to perform those servicos; and Gy) Court reporters und other persons engaged in preparing transcripls cf resimmony or hearings for this ection 1. Way party should conclade that partisular Comfidentia) Material should not be treated. as confidential thea itmay so notify the producing party in writing and state the basis for that ‘ conclusion. Within seven days of its receipt of tbat notice, the producing party shall notify the other . party in writing whether it insists on the material being treeted as coofideatial and as specified im this Order, If the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the status of that material, then the partica shall continue to treatit as designated and 1 use itonty in the mamer authorized by this Order unless and until this Court rules thar it may be treated otherwise, 4 Any deposition tumsccipt, plesding, motion, memorandum of other paper filed with the Court which includes or discloses any Confidential Material shall be identified with the words, ~ “Confidential — Resisted Access Purmant to Court Order* gad shell be filed md maintained wnder seal wntll further order of Bais Court Filing the document under seal chall not bar amy of the parties from unrestricted use or dissemination of those portions of the document which da pot contain Confidential © Material. . . 5, Nothing in this Order shall be deemed in any way to restrict the use of documents or information which z party lawfully obtains independently, whether or aot the same materia) is also obtained through formal discovery in the action. . 6. Nothing in this Order shall constitute a waiver ofa party's right to object to the production of any Confidential Material or to demand more stringent restrictions upon the treatment and disclosure of ony Confidential Material on the ground that it conmins pardeulerly sensitive information. 2OCT. 24 20024 4: 11PHEAEH 37 THOMPSON A KNIGHT 214 9651751 mC. 7888 v2 2 Oe ow w wf Nollzing in thls Order shall timait or affect the right of party to disclose or to authorize dieclonae of Confidential Material produced by that porty. Amy pany may apply to the Court for modification of this Ordcr at eny ime, 8 Restrictions on the use or disclosure of Confidenris! Materia! es specified in this Order shall continue during any tial or bearing in this care, The use of Confidential Material as - evidence at ial or hearing in this case shall be subject to such protection ax the Court shall det=ming pt the time, % Nolte ny days arb nape er impel al julpnent or senlement of this action, all Confidcatial Material ‘(including all saris, cxtracts and summsrics) shall be destroyed by shredding. or buming or be returned to the Producing party. No patty or ita counse! may retain copies of any Confidentin} Material more than thiny dys after the uneppesied or unappeclable . final judgment cr setlement of this ection, : 10. Neither the urination af this actioa nor the texmination of employment of any person ike bad access to eny Confidential Material shall relieve any person frum the obligation of maintaining both the confidentiality end the restrictions om use of anything disclosed pursuant to this , Ue Nothing in this Order shall ber or otherwise restrict eny attorney from rendering advice to his or her clicat with respect to thia action and, in the couse of giving such advice, fom referring to or relying generally upon his or her examination of ‘Confidential Material. However, in tendering any Such advice or in otherwise communicating with his or her client, the attorney shall not disclose the contents or source of my Confidential Material in ¢ manner contrary tw the tenn of this Order. ‘OCT. 24. 2002( 3: 11PMR5PM 37 THOMPSON & KNIGHT 214 969:75! fic Wa WME Ta ee ear. PAD Tee teen {. | ’ wv ¥ too . } | IIS sO ORDERED, vj | Dated this day of Apu, 2000. hy +8 i ..| “hd ~ : | Reviewed and anpreved! toy eho { 1 lee AV. awl fj Schenee (0010867) ! dnt Gee ately ay 1 Robert A, Malvishan (0064199) f i THOMPSGN MINE L LORY ILLF. i 312 Walma Sues Suite 1400 - - ' i, Ghté 45202 . | B13) 352-6700 Attomays for DefoulsaVEmplayst Geneal Motors Corporation | . : A= 7 Bevan & Eeononus 4 BED Northfield Rosd pI Numthficld, Ohio, 44057 { } + Altarney for Phintiff 4 Beuy Te Texy i ' t to ! ware i ’ tenty toby fis o ba a te i rd carrest chy, : Wires nda sis BO ; a oye ao. . : ut j - a iL | : | APR-28-00 WED 03547 Px 390 487 aa boyEXHIBIT B EXHIBIT BIN THE COURT OF COMMON FLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION BETTY L. TERRY, Y CaseNo, 98-893 Flaint Hf, : Sndge Panick J, Foley YS, t C. JAMES CO} , a : ADMINISTRATOH, BUREAU OF WORKERS! COMPENSATION AND =-:~—« ENTRY ENFORCING AGREED INDUSTRIAL CO! SSION, et aly PROTECTIVE ORDER Cincinnati-Dayton Sttnographic, Inc. sud the Cout’s receipt from Cincinnati-Dayron Stenographic jer forms for the transcript and videotape of the deposition of Ralph A. yy makes the following findings: el for Plaintiff, Thomas Sevan, advised Citcinnsti-Dayton Stenographic on that the Agreed Protective Onder had beso modified whee, in fact, such order1 reroratjontd conduct constirates & violstion of s the Agreed Protective Order. LY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: - : ‘end provisions of the Agreed Protective Order dated April 27, 2000 remain force and effect; : Prior fo July 10, 2000, Cincinnat!-Dayton Stenographic, Inc, shall disclose to the Court pnd/or produce to the Court all infarrnation relating to tha sale and disaibution OF the franseript and videntape of the deposition of Ralph A. Froehlich, including the om addresgea, telephone. nurnbers of each person receiving the copies and the dates pf purchase and shipment; : - Counjel for General Motors shall serve writen natice, long with copies of this Entryjand the Agreed Protective Onder, on each person identified by Cinciunati- Daytch Steaographie, Inc. as having received « copy of the transcript of videotape deposition of Ralph A. Frochlich; ‘Withip 14 days of writen notice having be=n served by counsel for General Motors, of as who have received a copy of the transcript or videotape af the deposition A Frochlieh, whether from Cincinnati-Dayton Stenographic or otherwise:OCT. 24. 2000 3: 12FMgR Prepared by; Jane £. Garfinkel H 37 THOMPSON & KNIGHT 214 969173: shall tetwn the original and of) dupticare copies of the transccipr and Videotape to counsel for General Matars Corparatic, Robert A. McMahon, Thompson Hine & Flory LL?, 312 Walgur Strees, 14% Flocr, Cincinnari, * Obdo 45202; shall not retain and shall desmoy any and a documents contziniag information from the transcript or videotape, including but not limited to, any Hotes, ewamaries, memarnda and comespondence: and stall conten in writing to counsel for General Motors that such person has complied with this court order, hes not retzined or disuibuted any copies of the wanseript or yideotspe to any perton and, if they have, identity all such ‘petsons by name, address and telephone number and Provide such persops ‘with notice of this court order and the Agreed Protestive Order, Entered; HONORABLE PATRICK FOLEY (oo 10444) Robert A. McMahon {0064319} THOMPSON HINE & FLORY LLP 312 Watnnt Street, Sifte 1400 Cincinnati, Obie 4: (513) 352-6700 ~{513) 241-4771 - fax Attomeys for D. ‘Employes, General Motors Corpdtation | hately tery wis to by a inl and correct cop . , ‘Wiorese ity gand Bile sql ateEXHIBIT C EXHIBIT CU1DI- 13-2003 19:25 . os oo se PORTE * SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORIC SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT . Tn RE: SEVEN 1-L JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION ‘This Document Relates To: Coustance F, Polito, Individually and ag Excoutrix far ‘The Estate of Selvntore T, Potite, . . Plaintifé vs > Index #01/008226 . - Monroe Count}, “Anchor Packing Company, Borg-Warner Corporation, * . * Caterpillar, [ne., . + + DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Deere & Co., Eastman Kodalc Company, Federal Mogul Products, inc., kdn Felt Praducts Mfg, Co., Federal Mogul Products, Inc., fk/a Moog Aufomotive, Inc., as successor by merger to Wagner Electric Corp, Ford Motor Company, Carlock; Ino, General Motors Corporation, , Honeywell Com., iflva Allied Signal, Inc., as successor by merger Mergenthaler Linotype Company, IMO Industries, . Maok Trucks, Inc., Maremonnt Corp. Motion Contcot industries, inc., as predecessor in interest to Cutlisle Corporation, Owens-Illinois, Inc., Westinghouse Air Brake Company, a/k/a WABCO, Inc., Defendants.NOVHSs3-2003 19135 : APPEARANCES: James C. Long, Jr: Esq. Of Counsel Evan M, Janush, Bsq., Of Counsel Weitz & Luxenberg, B.C. Attomeys for Plaintiff Bruce §, Huttuer, Esq., Of Counsel Donohue, Sabo, Varley & Armatrong, P.C. Attomeys for Defendant, Burns International Services Corporation Ova Borg-Wamer Corporation, “Terrance P, Flynn, Esq., Of Counsel _ Gibson, MeAskill de Crosby LLP Attorneys for Defendants, DainilerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation Christine O. Boyd, Esq., Of Counsel Lavin, Coleman, O'Neil, Ricci, Finarelli & Gray Attomeys for General Motors Corporation DECISION_ AND ORDER RAYMOND E. CORNELIUS, J. ‘The Plaintiff, Constance F. Polito, was the spouse of Salvatore T. Polito, who died Bo3/aa from mesothelioma, n disease commonly associated with exposure to asbestos. Mir. Polita hos been described as a former auto mechanic, who allegedly was exposed to asbestos from friction products, over a number of yerrs, during which time {ic installed and/or repaired brakes. The remaining Defendants in the case, Burns International Services Corporation (ida Borg - Warner Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation, were all involved in the manufacturing and/or distribution of brake products,90-13-2603 . 19:25 POGUE This action is presently scheduied to proceed fo trlal, and the Defendants have made a number of inotlons int lintiag ‘o exclude cerinin evidence, which is anticipated to he offered by Plaintiff. Some of these motions were resolved. 1 by egreement ‘between the parties, and others were decided by the Court at motion ferm. However, the Court reserved decision c on fliree of the motions tn lintine, which are decided as hereinafter set forth. Workers! Compengation Claims.end Plant Conditions The Defendants acknoveledge that one of the component parts of ‘the finished brake. products, which were allegedly worked on by Mr. Polito, was asbestos, bonded in rosin and fully encapsulated within brake casiigs. ‘The motion in limine sceks to preclude Plaindff * from attempting to offer into evidence, at trial, working conditions at some of the Defendants’ manufacturing plants, where raw asbestos fibers were inixed, processed and Incorporated into the brake product, as well ag Worlters! Conzpensation claims muande by employees of these plants. In essence, the Defendants contend. that such evidence would be irrelevant to (he question of whether or nol they had or should have bad Inowledge concerning the adverse health effects associated with end-product users of | asbestos containing, finished brake products, In support of the motion in danine, Defendants rely upon the decision In. re: Related Asbestos Cases, 543 PSupp 1152 (ND CA 1982}, in which the Court excluded documents pertaining to Warkers' Compensation claims, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court conceded that Workers! Compensation documents are Benerally relevant to the question of notice, but decided to exclude them from evidence in this case, 3HOU-T3-2003 19:25 , because of the volume of documents, which would present many collateral issues; the : remoteness In titne of many of the actions; the maltipfictty of [nrisdictionss and a failure to show whether or not eacl action was settled or adjudleated, and if settled, whether the ease was settled for anisanee value, However, tu the Stnte of New Yosic, "Evidence of successful workers! compensation cintms... as well as evidence of ~willseases among asbestos plant workers" is ndratsefble, at trial, on the issue of a.diefendant's “ulnowledge af thee risks of asbestos exposare and the reasonableness of its failure to warn the end-nsers of its product . ofthose risks." (In re: Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigution, 190 AD2d | 008 (ak Dept. 1994}.) As nforcracntioned, Defendunts contend that Workers! Compensation claims made by plant workers and/or plant conditions, which may evidence health risks nssociated with raw asbestos, fs irrelevant to the question of thoir respective Icnowledge of dangers associated wit the Gnishetl byake product, wiiieh contained asbestos, bonded in reste aud fully eneapsilated within the bral Ie cusing. An analogous argument was made in Mandowite ¥% Xerox Corp. (169 AD2nd 300 [£" Dept. 1991]), wherein the Defendant unsuccessfully sought « protective order from a notice of discovery, vequesting claims and Inwsuits previously led for lujuries ns u result of asbestos exposure to copying equipment, but which were not limfted fo the particular madels of copiers allegedly operated by Oe decedent. The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs position "...