Party Discovery: RODRICK BRECKLER et al VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2
§ 3 B
gee5 14
# ERS
gees 15
£5"! 16
g* &
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
4
25
26
27
28

DANPS/1055195/10045649v.£

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN SOBEL (SBN: 177210)

MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI (SBN: 245595) ELECTRONICALLY

GORDON & REES LLP FILED

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 ean

San Diego, CA 92101, “County of San Francisca”
One: ~

Fax: (619) 696-7124 JUN 28 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: ALISON AGBAY

Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE

RODRICK BRECKLER and
JOANN BRECKLER,

CASE NO. CGC-08-274566

EXHIBITS C THROUGH G TO
DECLARATION OF MITCHELL B.
MALACHOWSKI IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION OF PACIFIC
SCIENTIFIC COMPANY TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, 1; and
DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST.

Filed & Served Together:

. Notice of Motion and Motion

2. Memorandum of Points & Authorities
3. Separate Statement of Disputed
Responses

4. Declaration of Mitchell Malachowski
5. Proposed Order

Hearing:

Date: July 8, 2011

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: 220

Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn

Filing date: March 12, 2008
Trial date: July 11, 2011

Ne Ne Ne ee Ne ee Nae ae” Ne Nn! Se! Nae! ee! Nae! te Se ae! ae! ae Ne tee Sa ee
_

“le

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTIONEXHIBIT CSuite 2000

Sun Diego, CA 92101

Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway

wo Oot AN HW BF Wh

Ny N NY NH KR N NY NY KH -_ -_
e232 AG oS = FS Fe Baar oReE S

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN SOBEL (SBN: 177210)

MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI (SBN: 245595)
GORDON & REES LLP

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: (619) 696-6700

Fax: (619) 696-7124

Attomeys for Defendant
PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE
RODRICK BRECKLER and ) CASE NO. CGC-08-274566
JOANN BRECKLER, )
) DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC
Plaintiffs, } COS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
} TO PLAINTIFF JOANN BRECKLER
V8.
} SET NO. ONE
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As )
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, {; and ) Filing date: March 12, 2008
DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST. } Trial date: July 11, 2011

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff JOANN BRECKLER
SET NO.: ONE

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, et seq., please produce
the documents and things described below for inspection and copying at Gordon & Rees, LLP,
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000, San Diego, California 92101, within thirty (30) days after the
date of service hereof.

INSTRUCTIONS
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, ef seq., please produce

the documents and things described below for inspection and copying at Gordon & Rees, LLP,
‘yt

dif
ale

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF
JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO. ONE—

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000, San Diego, California 92101, within thirty (30) days after the
date of service hereof.

1 Plaintiffs are requested to produce all described documents which are in the actual
or constructive possession of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attomeys, agents, employees, accountants
or other representatives, or which are otherwise subject to their custody or control.

2. If plaintiffs claim the right to withhold under a claim of privilege any documents
which are responsive to any document request, please provide the following information with

Gordon & Rees LLP

101 W. Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

oC oN DA Hh B® WN

Yb N NY YP YW NR NR Dow we beh ent
oy Ae Pe OH = SF Fea DREGE EBE TS

respect to each document withheld from production:
(a) the type of document, e.g., letter, memorandum, handwritten notes;
(b) the privilege asserted;

(c) the name and job title or capacity of the author or originator of the document;

(@) the name and job title or capacity of each recipient of the document;

(e) the date of the document, if any, or an estimate thereof;

@ the subject matter addressed in the document; and

(g)  astatement of the basis of the claim of privilege.

DOC NTS AND THINGS TO BE PROD! ‘D

REQUEST PRODUCTI 1:

Produce all DOCUMENTS identified or mentioned in YOUR responses to all
interrogatories served on YOU by PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC in this matter.

(As used herein, “DOCUMENT” means a “writing” as defined in Evidence Code

section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting,
printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon

any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters,

words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them.
As used herein, the terms “YOU” and “YOUR?” refers to plaintiff JOANN

BRECKLER, his/her agents, employees, attomeys, accountants, investigators, and

anyone else acting on his behalf.

As used herein, the term “PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC” refers to defendant PACIFIC
SCIENTIFIC and any other entity for which YOU contend PACIFIC
SCIENTIFIC bears responsibility.)

‘tl

Mt
-2-

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF

JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO. ONEOo wm YN DA HA F&F WY

tet
s+ oO Ob = GS

Suite 2000
_
wn

101 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92161

Gordon & Rees LLP
vy
BSRRRBSRREBRSES SF

REQUEST DUCTION NO, 2:

Produce all DOCUMENTS evidencing, referring or relating to any economic damages,
and any other damages YOU attribute to Roderick Breckler’s alleged exposure to raw asbestos
and/or asbestos containing products.

REQUEST FOR PROD IN 3:

Produce all DOCUMENTS conceming any claims submitted for insurance benefits or
proceeds arising out of the alleged injuries referred to in YOUR Complaint.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Produce all DOCUMENTS conceming applications for health, disability, or life
insurance filed by Roderick Breckler, or on Roderick Breckler’s behalf, and each insurer’s
response fo each such application.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Produce all personal and/or work diaries kept by Roderick Breckler at any time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Produce all DOCUMENTS representing, recording or referring to any correspondence,
notices, newsletters, or bulletins received by Roderick Breckler from or through any local of any
union in which Roderick Breckler had ever been a member.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

Produce all DOCUMENTS representing, recording or referring to any trade publications
or trade journals serving any of the unions in which Roderick Breckler had ever been a member.

EST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

Produce all DOCUMENTS which establish, show, indicate or otherwise demonstrate that
defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC knew of any alleged dangerous propensities of raw asbestos or
asbestos containing products.

Vt
it
‘it

‘it

3.
DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF
JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO. ONEwo wm YA KH FW N

et tet
> BY NH & SS

Suite 2000
~
wn

101 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

Gordon & Rees LLP
a

a

boN boy NoN —
BRRRRRBRNRBRSS

ST FOR P Ui :
Produce all DOCUMENTS evidencing any statement of person(s) taken by YOU, YOUR

attorneys or investigators working for YOUR attomeys, or other agents, regarding Roderick
Breckler’s exposure to any asbestos-containing gasket products.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Produce all DOCUMENTS evidencing any statements of person(s) taken by YOU,
YOUR attomeys, or investigators working for YOUR attomeys, or other agents regarding
Roderick Breckler’s exposure to asbestos-containing products.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Produce ali DOCUMENTS, records, or references made by YOU regarding any asbestos-
related injuries Roderick Breckler allegedly sustained.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR First Cause of Action for Negligence
against Propounding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 13:

Produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR Second Cause of Action for Strict
Liability against Propounding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR Third Cause of Action for False
Representation against Propounding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR Fourth Cause of Action for Loss of
Consortium against Propounding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR Fifth Cause of Action for Premises
Owner/Contractor Liability against Propounding Party.

‘it

it

Ae
DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF
JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO. ONESuite 2000

Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

eo oN AH BR WwW NH

tt
oY A A & BH N - SC

19

RE ST FOR PRODUCTIO! nad 23

Produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR claim for punitive damages against
Propounding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 18:

Produce all DOCUMENTS that are or relate to claims YOU have made to asbestos
bankruptcy trusts and other entities administering personal injury or wrongful death claims
related to asbestos.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

All DOCUMENTS evidencing the terms of YOUR settlement with any and all
defendants appearing in this lawsuit, including any and all emails or letters, settlement
agreements, release agreements and/or dismissal requests, whether in draft form, final form,
executed or not.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

All DOCUMENTS referring or relating to the terms and conditions of any settlement
with any defendant appearing in this lawsuit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

All DOCUMENTS which set forth the percentage allocation between economic and non-
economic damages for any settlement sums paid or to be paid by any and all defendants who
have appeared in this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

All DOCUMENTS that you executed releasing or effecting the release of S.H. Coley
Construction Company, of all claims which form the basis of the instant lawsuit filed by you.
RE ‘F FOR PRODUCTIO!

All DOCUMENTS that you executed releasing or effecting the release of Actuant
Corporation, of all claims which form the basis of the instant lawsuit filed by you.

At
Mt

A

Su
DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF
JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO, ONE.Suite 2000

101 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

Gordon & Rees LLP

wo eo DW DO HD BF WN mw

Rett
ocoMU OR AH RB YH NH S

21

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

All DOCUMENTS which you contend to show that PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC is not a
joint-tortfeasor as to Roderick Breckier’s alleged asbestos-related injury, specifically kidney
cancer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

All DOCUMENTS which you contend demonstrate that Roderick Breckler’s alleged
kidney cancer was caused by PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC alone.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

All DOCUMENTS which you contend demonstrate that Roderick Breckler’s alleged
kidney cancer was not caused by any defendant which has already settled your lawsuit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 27:

All DOCUMENTS which you contend establish that any settlement agreement reached
by you with any defendant in case was “in good faith” as contemplated by Code of Civil
Procedure section 877 and 877.6.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

All DOCUMENTS relating to or evidencing the amount billed for any and all medical
treatment that Roderick Breckler received as a resuit of Roderick Breckler’s alleged asbestos-
related injuries.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 29:

All DOCUMENTS relating to or evidencing the amount paid for any and all medical
treatment that you received as a result of Roderick Breckler’s alleged asbestos-related injuries.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:

All DOCUMENTS related to, including the original containers for, any and all
medications or drugs that Roderick Breckler is currently taking.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:

All DOCUMENTS relating the actual amounts paid by any insurance company for any

medical treatment received by Roderick Breckler claimed as damages in this lawsuit.

My

6

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF
JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO. ONEapi
aus
gen
Be 3

~

wo ow nN A Hh ee WN

10

RE! FOR PRODUCTIO! 32:

All DOCUMENTS relating the actual amounts paid by any public agency for any
medical treatment received by Roderick Breckler claimed as damages in this lawsuit.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

Ail DOCUMENTS relating the actual amounts paid by Medicare for any medical

treatment received by Roderick Breckler claimed as damages in this lawsuit.

Dated: May {2 , 2011 GORDON & REES LLP

Wl Ce -

‘Roger M. Mansukhani
Steven Sobel

Mitchell B. Malachowski
Attorneys for Defendant
PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

By:

7

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF
JOANN BRECKLER - SET NO. ONEoa nN KD HB WY NH

Sau Diego, CA 92101
tnt
eo A wk WN SS

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN SOBEL (SBN: 177710)

MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI (SBN: 245595)
GORDON & REES LLP

101 West Broadway

Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: (619) 696-6700

Fax: (619) 696-7124

Attomesn for Defendant
Y INDUSTRIES, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE
RODRICK BRECKLER and JOANN ) CASE NO. CGC-08-274566
BRECKLER, )
} Complaint filed: 03/12/08
Plaintiff, )
) PROOF OF SERVICE
va. }
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As } Judge: Hon. Harold B. Kahn

Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, I; and Dept.: 220
DOES 1.8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST. } Trial date: Not set
Jam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000, San Diego, CA
92101. My electronic notification address is pstear@gordonrees.com.
On May 10, 2011, I served the following document(s):
Please see attached list.
(X) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE. By sending
electronically a true and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve
isnexis.com/fil for service on all counsel of record by electronic service
pursuant to the Order Mandating Electronic Filing and Service of Asbestos Pleadings and

pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 and CRC 2060(c). The transmission was reported as complete
and without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 10, 2011.

Pamela StearDOCUMENTS SERVED

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO PLAINTIFF JOANN BRECKLER, SET NO, ONE

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO PLAINTIFF RODERICK BRECKLER, SET NO. ONE

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO,’S SUPPLEMENTAL
INTERROGATORY TO PLAINTIFF JOANN BRECKLER

DEFENDANT PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.’S SUPPLEMENTAL
INTERROGATORY TO PLAINTIFF RODERICK BRECKLERFrom: LexisNexis File & Serve [TransactionReceipt@fileandserve.lexisnexis.com}
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2014 2:28 PM

To: Pamela Stear

Subject: Case: 274566; Transaction: 37507407 Transaction Receipt

To: Pamela J Stear
Subject: Transaction Receipt

This email is to confirm receipt of your documents. The transaction option you selected
was "Serve Only ~ Public”. The details for this transaction are listed below.

Court: CA Superior Court County of San Francisco
Case Name: Breckler vs Asbestos Defendants (Brayton)
Case Number: 274566

Transaction ID; 37507407

Document Title(a):

Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Supplemental
Breckler (2 pages)

Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Supplemental
Breckler (2 pages)

Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Requests for
Breckler, Set No. One (7 pages)

Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Requests for
Breckler, Set No. One (7 pages)

Proof of Service (2 pages)

Authorized Date/Time: May 10 2011 2:22PM PDT
Authorizer: Mitchell Malachowski
Authorizer's Organization: Gordon & Rees~San Diego

Sending Parties:

Pacific Scientific Co
Served Parties:

67 parties

Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve.

Interrogatory to Plaintiff Roderick
Interrogatory to Plaintiff Joann
Production to Plaintiff Roderick
Production to Plaintiff Joann

Questions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact LexisNexis Customer Service by

phone at 1~888-529-7587 (24/7).Page 1 of 2

LexisNexis File & Serve Transaction Receipt

Transaction ID: 37507407
Submitted by: Pameta Stear, Gordon & Rees-San Diego
Authorized by: Mitchell Malachowski, Gordon & Rees-San Diego
Authorize and file on: May 10 2011 2:22PM POT
Court: CA Superior Court County of San Francisco
Division/Courtroom: N/A
Case Class: Civit
Case Type: Personal Injury-Asbestos:
Case Number: 274566
Case Name: Breckler vs Asbestos Defendants (Brayton)
er eeeeereeeenaemeen nner teen eeeeenenteerene
Transaction Option Serve Only - Public
Billing Reference: DANPSLOSS195.
Read Status for e-service: Not Purchased
Documents List
5 Document(s)
Attached Document, 2 Pages Document ID: 39174543 POF Format | Orginal Format
Document Type: Access: Statutory Fee: Linked:
Discovery - use for electronic service only Public $0.00
Document tities
Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Supplemental Interrogatory to Plaintiff Roderick Breckler
Attached Document, 2 Pages Document ID: 39174632 PDE Format j Original Format
Document Type: Access: ‘Statutory Fee: Linked:
Discovery - use for electronic service onty Public $0.00
Document titie:
Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.’s Supplemental Interrogatory to Piaintiff Joann Brecker
Attached Document, 7 Pages Document 1D: 39174723 PDF Format | Oricinal Format
Document Type: Access: Unked:
Discovery - use for electronic service only Public $0.00
Document tities
Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Requests for Production to Piaintiff Roderick Brecker, Set No. One
Attached Document, 7 Pages Document ID: 39174814 PRE Format } Original Format
Document Type: Access: ‘Statutory Fee: Linked:
Discovery - use for electronic service only Public $0.00
Document tithe:
Defendant Pacific Scientific Co.'s Requests for Production to Plaintiff Joann Breckler, Set No. One
Attached Document, 2 Pages Document ID: 39174867 PRE Format | Original Format
Document Type: Access: ‘Statutory Fee: Linked:
Proof of Service Public $0.00
Document titie:
Proof of Service
‘Expand Ali
© Sending Parties (1).
Party Party Type Attorney Firm Attorney Type

Pacific Scientific Co Defendant Mansukhani, Roger M Gordon & Rees-San Diego Attormey in Charge
1) Recipients (403)

G2) Service List (101)

E]_Additional Recisents (0)

hitps://w3.fileandserve.lexisnexis.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSu... 5/10/2011EXHIBIT DBRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

POBOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 298-1555

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ,, S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ, S.B. #154436
2 || 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

5 (415) 898-1555 .

|| Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-08-274566

‘ainti:
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF RODRICK BRECKLER’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT PACIFIC
|| vs. SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff RODRICK BRECKLER
SET NO.: ONE

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 1: Not applicable. Plaintiff has not identified or mentioned
any documents on Interrogatory responses to this defendant.

RESFC NSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Plaintiff objects to this Request upon the grounds that it is
unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent that defendant improperly seeks duplicate
information which intiff has provided to defendant, or which is equally available to
defendant. Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. Plaintiff
further objects to this Request 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. § 2034.010 et seq. Plaintiff also
objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected by
|| the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without
|| waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff's economic losses will be
presented by plaintiff's retained economic consultants pursuant to C.C.P. § 2034.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time, Plaintiff

Kinjured\108747pldufp-rsp-PACSCLwpd- 1reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
seeks information that is protected under the collateral source doctrine, This Request seeks to

ascertain ifsome part of plaintiff's expenses were paid by collateral sources and as such, seeks
{ information beyond the scope of permissible discovery, information not relevant to the subject
matter of this action, and information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad,
Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

| RESPONSE_Tt : Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it

| seeks information that is prot under the collateral source doctrine. This Request seeks to

[| ascertain if some part of plaintiff's expenses were paid by collateral sources and as such, seeks
}| information beyond the scope of permissible discovery, information not relevant to the subject
matter of this action, and information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad.
Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

H RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and
} overly broad not limited on time, so it is unduly burdensome and oppressive to plaintiff.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it infringes upon the right

|| of privacy as conferred by ARTICLE I, Section 1 of the California Constitution.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 6: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and
f overly broad and not on time, so it is unduly burdensome and ssive to plaintiff.

Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff is not in
possession of any documents responsive to this request.

Pursuant to CCP. § 2031.230, plaintiff, afer making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
i that there is no further relevant antae responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
j| teserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE T o REQUEST NO. 7: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and
overly and not limited on time, so it is burdensome and o pressive to plaintiff. —
Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff is not in
f possession of any responsive to this Request. .

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
|| reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: The hazards associated with Sxposure to asbestos and the

effect of asbestos exposure on humans have been well documented wut the twentieth

century. As early as the 1930s, there existed a wealth of information available for defendant
which evidences that exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products was a health
hazard. California promulgated industrial safety standards for workmen around asbestos-

H containing products beginning in the 1930s. Therefore, defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
knew or id have known of the health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos as early
as the 1930s. Plaintiff identifies two texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of

asbestos-related disease. Th : Asbestos: Medical and Legal ¢

ie are: S pf Asnects
1. Castleman, Prentice-Hall Law & Business, 1990: and Sourvebook on Asbestos Disease:
| & Engineeri George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM
Press, Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986. Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them

KAlnjuredil 08747pidlufp-rap-PACSCL wpd 2

oP TD TH FW NH

teem
wk BW NR =m OSeI DA MW RYN

| and there!
| expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.010 et seq.

available for defendant's review. Due to copyright laws, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these

texts to defendant. Plaintiff also identifies General Industry Safety Orders Promulgated the
nia inistrative Code under

| RESPONSE. TO REQUEST NO, 9: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and

| overly broad and not limited on time, so it is unduly burdensome and oppressive to plaintiff.

| Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information

i protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff
ol

bjects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for expert opinions and conclusions
prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is properly the subject of

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous
and overly broad and not limited on time, so it is ‘unduly burdensome and oppressive to
plaintiff. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the that it calls for expert opinions and

} conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information. which is ly the

subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.010 et seq.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous
and overly broad and not limited on time, so it is unduly burdensome and oppressive to
plaintiff. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks

f information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
| Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for opinions and

conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information which is P ly the
subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.010 et seq.
Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
sth th Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's Complaint and other pleadings already on file
with the court.
Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff”s responses to Standard Asbestos Case

| Interrogatories, and all exhibits al ed thereto, previously provided to and equally available

from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930
California 94610 (510) 835-8330.
Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's deposition transcripts, dated October 14, 2008,

Avenue, Oakland,

# and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these transcripts are equally

available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in ssion of these documents.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
that there is no further relevant for responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff

f, KAtnjured\tO87é7pkehetp rep PACSCI wpd 36 ith pe Mint presently identifies plaintiff's Complaint and other pleadings already on file
wil court.
Plaintiff Presently identifies plaintiff s Supplemental responses to Standard Asbestos
|, Case Interrogatories, all exhibits attached thereto, ious! Wided to and equally
available from Coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Beny, 2 $F bakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
Calo int eseudlyidentihes laintiff’s medical ‘ds, empl rds, and Social
jaintiff presently i jaintiff’s medical records, employment reco: i
Security records, equally available ‘fom coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff’ s deposition transcripts, dated October 14, 2008,
and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these transcripts are equally
available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California $4612
(510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff further identifies all the papers, photographs, films, recordings, memoranda,
books, records, pamphlets, circulars, handbooks, manuals, periodicals, files, envelopes, notices,
instructions. transoripts, notes, telex messages, communications (including reports, notes,
|| notation and memo: of telephone conversations and conferences, electronic mail, minutes,
|| transcriptions, correspondence, etc.), writings, letters, telegrams, correspondence, notes of
| meetings or of conversations either in writing or upon any mechanical or electronic devices,

i notes, accountants’ statements or summaries, reports, invoices, canceled checks, check stubs

| receipts, bank statements, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, payment records,

Ht tel ne bills in defendant’s constructive possession, custody, care or control relating to the

Jobsites at which decedent worked. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these
uments.

Further, plaintiff identifies the transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto of any and all
Persons Most Knowledgeable and Custodians of Records, past and present, of PACIFII
} SCIENTIFIC CO., including but not limited to the deposition of Richard Plat taken on October
i 3, 2007, in Cashman v. Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Corporation, et al. King County Superior
| Court, State of Washington, Cause No. 05-2-28978-3 SEA, reported by Shirley Koch-Smith,
| CCR 3096, certified in and for the State of Washington. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
| possession of these documents.

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

27} Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
|| Plaintiff cannot make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating Federal
28 4 copyright laws.

| Knjured\t08747pleifp-rmp-PACSCLwpd 4Plaintiff identifies a report prepared for the EPA: “Regulatory Impact Analysis of
|, Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Produ ” Final Report ene To89.

|| attorney work-product doctrine. Plaint

s|
9}

RESPONSE jo REQUEST NO. 13: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
tnapproprisie ly calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds
to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the
duc intiff further objects to this Request 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. §2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds

| as follows:

i

18}

sth tae intift presently identifies plaintiff s Complaint and other pleadings already on file
wil court.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's Supplemental responses to Standard Asbestos
Case Interrogatories, all exhibits attached thereto, previously provided to and equally

| available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,

California 94610 (510) 835-8330.
jaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's medical records, employment records, and Social

Ph
i Security records, equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & .

intiff presently identifies plaintiffs deposition transcripts, dated October Ya, 2008,

| and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these transcripts are equally

available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California

i (510) 43) 1-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

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

uments.
Further, plaintiff identifies the transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto of any and all
Persons Most Knowledgeable and Custodians of Records, past and present, of PACIFI

| SCIENTIFIC CO., including but not limited to the deposition of Richard Plat taken on October

20 Co Ace URS SUN RE
urt, State o! n, Cause No. 05-2- -Smi
CCR 3096, certified in and for the State of Washington. Plaintiff believes defendant isin
possession of these documents.

Plaintiff presently identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literatures since the turn of the cent and have been summarized in various publications.

| Two texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of this literature are:

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

KAinjared\08747pkd\fp-rsp-PACSCL wpd 5we BI DH RW Nm

fee tet
et DA A BR WN eS

George A. Peters and Barbara J. 1
Vol. T, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986
Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
a cannot make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating Federal
copyright laws.

Plaintiff identifies a report prepared for the EPA: “Regulatory Impact Analysis of

january 19, 1989.

Plaintiff identifies a study icDermott: “Exposure to Asbestos

From Asbestos Gaskets,” ies i gi 1991), Vol. 6, pp.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

ST NO. 14: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it

tnappr jately calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds

to the extent that it seeks information cted by the attorney-client privilege and/or the
attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that it
cails 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. § 2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is not currently aware of being in possession of any documents responsive
to this request.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

TNO. 15: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
inappro ‘ely cails for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds
to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the

attomey work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Request 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 rts in violation
of CCP. §2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
as follows:

ith th Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's Complaint and other pleadings already on file
with the court.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Supplemental responses to Standard Asbestos
Case Interrogatories, and all exhibits attached thereto, previousl Provided to and equally
available from Coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
California 94610 (510) 835-8330. .

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's medical records, employment records, and Social
Security records, equally available ‘dom coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry.

Plaintiff ‘Presen ly identifies plaintiff RODRICK BRECKLER’s deposition transcri
dated October 14, 2008, and ail subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these
easeripts are equally available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505,

Oak 0 California 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of
ese documents.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff JOANN BRECKLER’s deposition transcripts,
dated June 9, 2009, and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these
transcripts are equally available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505,

Kinjured\t08747pidtp-rap-PACSCLwpd 6284

|| jobsites at which decedent worked. Plainti:

|| Oakland, California 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of
| these documents,

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable

|| inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes

that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.16- Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
inappr iately calls for a legal conclusion, Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds
to the extent that it seeks information d by the attorney-client privilege and/or the
attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that it
calls for expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of
information which is ly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or in violation

H of C.C.P. §2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
j) as follows: Plaintiff is not currently aware of being in possession of any documents responsive

to this request.
Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes

j| that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff

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

H RESEONSE TO. REQUEST NOU: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
H inappropriately calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds

to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the

|| attorney work-product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that it
ff calls for expert opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of
is

information whic! ly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or Teports in violation

| of C.C.P. § 2034.010 et coq, Subject fo and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds

as follows:
sth th Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's Complaint and other pleadings already on file
whi e court.
Plaintiff Presently identifies plaintiff's Supplemental responses to Standard Asbestos
Case Interrogatories, all exhibits attached thereto, ious! vided to and equal!

hy
| available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
[| California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiffs medical records, employment records, and Social
Security renords, equally available from coordinating defense counsel, & Berry,
laintiff presently identifies plaintiff’s deposition transcripts, dated October 14, 2008,
and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these transcripts are ly
available from Aiken & Welch, Inc., One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 451-1580, Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.
Plaintiff further identifies all the papers, photographs, films, recordings, memoranda,

books, records, pamphlets, circulars, handbooks, manuals, periodicals, files, envelopes, notices,

instructions, transcripts, notes, telex messages, communications (including reports, notes,

| notation and memoranda of telephone conversations and conferences, electronic mail, minutes,

transcriptions, correspondence, etc.), writings, letters, telegrams, correspondence, notes of
meetings or of conversations either in writing or upon any mechanical or electronic devices,
notes, accountants’ statements or summaries, reports, invoices, canceled checks, check stubs

|| receipts, bank statements, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, payment records,

tel nse bills in defendant’s constructive possession, custody, care or control relating to the
I believes defendant is in possession of these
locuments.

Further, plaintiff identifies the transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto of any and all

Persons Most Knowledgeable and Custodians of Records, past and present, of PACIFIC
SCIENTIFIC CO., including but not limited to the deposition of Richard Plat taken on October

KAlnjured\10874%phelvtp-rep-PACSCLwpd 72 A ax af ic Corporation, et a King County Superior
ashington, Cause 78 reported by Shirley Koch-Smith,
24 CCR 3096, certified in and for the State of Washington. Plaintiff believes defendant is in
_ Plaintiff presently identifies numerous articles and studies relating to health hazards
associated with exposure to asbestos which have appeared in the medical and scientific
literatures since the turn of the century, and have also been summarized in various publications.
Two texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of this literature are:

Peters and Barbara
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986

| Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.

H ve tne make nor distribute copies of these texts to defendant without violating Federal

| copyright laws.

i Plaintiff identifies a report prepared for the EPA: “Regulatory impact Analysis of
Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,” Final Report, January 19, 1989.

Plaintiff identifies a study by R.T. Cheng and H.J. McDermott: “l to Asbestos.
From Asbestos Gaskets,” ‘Applied Occupational & Environmental Hygiene 1991), Vol. 6, pp.

Pursuant to C,C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
improperly seeks information from retained litigation consultants protected by attormey work-
| product doctrine and, inter alia, C.C.P. § 2018.030. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the

§ grounds, and to the extent, that it seeks the premature disclosure of information of plaintiff's

i retained litigation consultants in violation C.C.P. § 2034.210 et seq. Plaintiff objects to this

|, Request upon the grounds it improperly seeks the disclosure of confidential lement
information. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it seeks information protected by the
attomey-client privilege. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff will provide post verdict

f non-privileged aggregate total settlements received from all bankruptcy claims submitted so that
proper adjusted credits are factored into net judgments entered against this propounding,
defendant, see Greathouse v. Amcord, Inc. (1993) 35 Cal.App.4th 831.

fi Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search and reasonable
| inquiry to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, believes
4 that there is no further relevant and/or responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
H reserves the right to supplement this Response, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

UE: 19: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that the
Hl ition req is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the
grounds that this Request seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is
protected under California law and will not be disclosed except by order of the Court.

| RESPONSE TO R EL i JEST NO. 20: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that the
27 {| information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably
f| calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the
¥ grounds that this Request seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is

l] KAtnjured\t 08747pitufp-rsp-PACSCLwpd 8protected under California law and will not be disclosed except by order of the Court.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that the

{| information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably

fi calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the _
grounds that this Request seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is

protected under fornia law and will not be disclosed except by order of the Court.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that the
information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably
caiculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the

| grounds that this Request seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is
| protected under California law and will not be disclosed except by order of the Court.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that the
information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the

| grounds that this Request seeks the disclosure of confidential settlement information which is
| protected under California law and will not be disclosed except by order of the Court.

0) 4: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it

inappropriately calls for a conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that

it is unintelligible as written. Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds and to the extent

that it seeks information protected the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-

f product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for expert

| opinions and conclusions and therefore prematurely seeks disclosure of information which ts

H rly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. §
034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintii as follows:

Plaintiff currently has documents which show that defendant PACIFIC SC] IC CO. is

joint-torfeasor as to his asbestos related injuries.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a