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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Ce eo IY DA RB WN

peat
wA & BW NH F&F

101 W. Broadway
Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

Gordon & Rees LLP
N oP MB BP RNR NR De me mee
IA ew BF GH = FS Fe AS

28

DANPS/1055195/10017558y.1

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.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUN 22 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE

RODRICK BRECKLER and
JOANN BRECKLER,

Plaintiffs,
¥s.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As

Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, H, I; and
DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST.

ee Ne ee

ee ee te ee ee eee

ols

CASE NO. CGC-08-274566

EXHIBITS D THROUGH G TO
DECLARATION OF MITCHELL B.
MALACHOWSKI IN SUPPORT OF
EX PARTE APPLICATION OF
PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC COMPANY
FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING
TIME FOR THE HEARING OFA
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ADJUDICATION

Filed & Served Together:

1. Ex Parte Application

2, Memorandum of Points and Authorities
3. Declaration of Mitchell B. Malachowski
4. Proposed Order

Hearing:

Date: June 22, 2011

Time: 11:00 a.m.

Dept.: 220

Judge: Hon. Harold E, Kahn
Filing date: March 12, 2008
Trial date: July 11, 2011

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF MITCHELL B. MALACHOWSKI IN SUPPORT
OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIMEEXHIBIT DBRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

POBOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Oo ON DA BR WwW HY

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ,, S.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #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
RODRICK BRECKLER and ASBESTOS
JOANN BRECKLER, No. CGC-08-274566
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF JOANN BRECKLER’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT PACIFIC
vs. SCIENTIFIC CO.’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.

RESPONDING PARTY:

SET NO.: ONE”

Plaintiff JOANN BRECKLER

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

PONSE TO RE! O..2:

unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent that defendant impro,

has already provided to defendant, or
defendant, Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague,
further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for ex;
seeks disclosure of information which is properly the subject of
expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.010

information which plainti

and therefore prematurely

Plaintiff objects to this Request upon the grounds that itis
i ly see!

duplicate

ich is equally available to
ambiguous and overly broad. Plaintiff
rt opinions and conclusions

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 attorne 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

KAlnjured\ 108747 pld\efp-rsp-PACSCI Joana.wpd 1

or responsive documents to produce at this time. PlaintiffoOo UDA MH PR BW HY we

NY NR YY NY NY KY NY WY het — ee
eu aA RR OR TS SFSSUIRGEEBDHRAS

reserves 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 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 gro Is and to the extent that it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: 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 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 ie, ambiguous and overly broad.
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.

RESPONSE TO UEST NO. 5: Plaintiff objects that this Request is vague, ambiguous and
overly broad and not limited on time, so it is uni uly 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
overly broad and not limited on time, so it is unduly burdensome and oppressive 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 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.

RESPC NSE TO REQUEST. NO. 7: 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.
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 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. 8: The hazards associated with exposure to asbestos and the
effect of asbestos exposure on humans have been well documented throughout 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-
containing products beginning in the 1930s. Therefore, defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
knew or should 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. They are: Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects.

Barry I. Castleman, Prentice-Hall Law & Business, 1990; and Source on Asbestos Disease:
Medical, Legal & Enginesring Aspects, George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM
Press, Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986. Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them

K Ainjurecht08747pld\p-esp-PACSCLJoann.wpd 2available for defendant's review. Due to copyright laws, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these
texts to defendant. Plaintiff also identifies General Industry Safety Orders promulgated
pursuant to California Labor Code § 6400, et seq. and California Administrative ‘ode under the
California Di ent of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety, including, but not
limited to, Title VII, Group 9 (Control of Hazardous Substances) Article 81, Section 4150,
4104-4108, and Threshold imit Values as documented for asbestos and other toxic substances
under Appendix A, Table I of said Safety Orders, Plaintiff also identifies NESHAPS Asbestos
Regulations (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) which are found at
‘ode

of Federal Re; ions, Title 40, ter 1, Subchapter C, Part 61, Subpart M, published
under the Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A, Section 7412(b)(1)(A) and 42 U,S.C.A.
Section 7412(b\(1)(B). Plaintiff also identifies OSHA standards relating to asbestos, found at
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter 17, Section 1910, et seq.; and Title 8, Section
5208 of the California OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos exposure.
. 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. 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
protected by the attorney-client privilege for 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 properly the subject of
expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation of C.C.P. § 2034.010 et seq.

RESPC NSE 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 attomey work-product docirine.
Plaintiff er 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.

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
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
Plaintiff er 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, plaintift responds as follows:

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 attached thereto, Previously provided to and equally available
from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 eshore Avenue, Oakland,
California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's deposition transcripts, dated October 14, 2008,
and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. Copies of these transcripts are e ually
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.

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 isno further relevant andor responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff

K Anjuted\t08747 gid \sfp-rsp- PACSCI Joann. wed 3om YD mW RW nN

VNNY NN Nw we et et a oe
&BYSRESREBSEREARBEREESBxS

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

RESPONSE TO REC WUEST NO. 12: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
tnappro) riately calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds
and to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attomey-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 properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or Feporis in violation
of EK. § 2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
as follows:

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiffs Complaint and other pleadings already on file
with the court.

Plaintiff Presently identifies plaintiff's Supplemental responses to Standard Asbestos
Case Interrogatories, and all exhibits attached thereto, iously Provided to and equally
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 records, equally available from 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 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,
telephone 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
documents,

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
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 appeared in the medical and scientific
literatures since the turn of the century, 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-! Law and Business, 1990

Source book on Asbestos Disease, Medical, Le;
George A’ Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garlan
Volt , 1980, Vol. 2, 1986

¢STPM

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

copyright laws.

KAinjured\t08747\pld\wfp-rsp-PACSCL Joann. wpd 4_
a

Plaintiff identifies a report prepared for the EPA: “Regulatory Impact Analysis of
Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,” Final Report, Senuary 19, Fogo. vs

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

588-59:

___, 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. 13: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
inappropriately calls for a legal conclusion. 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 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 ECP. § 2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
as follows:
. Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's Complaint and other pleadings already on file
with the court.
Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiffs Supplemental responses to Standard Asbestos
Case Interrogatories, and all exhibits attached thereto, previoush 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 from 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 ly

|| available ftom 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,
telephone bills in defendant’s constructive Bossession, custody, care or control relating to the
ipbsites 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
| 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 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:

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

KNinjured\108747pldirfp-rsp-PACSCI Joann. wpd 5eo OY AH F BW HN

=
°o

on Asbestos Disease. Medic:

George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garla
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986
Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
rae 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
Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,” Final Report, January 19, 1989.

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

388-591.
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.

of C.C.P. § 2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
any documents responsive

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. 15: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
i ropriately calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds
e extent that it seeks information 1 protected 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 properly the subject of expert witness testimony and/or reports in violation
of ECP. § 2034.010 et seq. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds
as follows:

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

Plaintiff presently 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, 29%
| California 94610 (510) 835-8330.

Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's medical records, employment records, and Social

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

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff RODRICK BRECKLER’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 94612 (510) 451-1580. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of
these 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,

KAinjured\108747pldifp-rsp-PACSCLJoann.wpd 6—
-~— O20 MY A A FW HN

_

28 |

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 NQ. 16: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
tnappro} riately calls for a legal conclusion. 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 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: 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.

RESPONSE TO T 17: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
ina] propristely calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff also objects to this Request on the grounds
to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorncy-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 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 presently identifies plaintiff's Complaint and other pleadings already on file

| with the court.

Plaintiff presently 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,

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiff's medical records, employment records, and Social

| California 94610 (510) 835-8330.
| Security records, equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry.

Plaintiff presently identifies plaintiffs 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 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,

| telephone 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

| documents,

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

I] KAunjurec\t08747pldltp-tsp-PACSCLJoann, wp 7CO WA A eR WN

3, 2007, in Cashman vy. Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Corporation, et al., King County Superior
Court, State of Washington, Cause No. 05-2-28978-3 SEA, reported by Shitley 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 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:

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

Source book on Asbestos Disease, Medical, Legal, and Engineering Aspects,
George A. Peters and Barbara J. Peters, Garland STPM Press
Vol. 1, 1980, Vol. 2, 1986

t 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

copyright laws.

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

Controls on Asbestos and Asbestos Products,” Final Report, January 19, 19:

Plaintiff identifies a study by R.T. Cheng and H.J. McDermott: “Exposure to Asbestos

From Asbestos Gaskets,” Applied Occupational & Environmental Hygiene (1991), Vol. 6, pp.
-591.

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.

: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it

|| RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18
| improperly seeks information from retained litigation consultants protected by attorney 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
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 settlement
information. Plaintiff objects to this Request because it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff will provide post verdict
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. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 831.

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.

E NSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: 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.

| RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: 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

I] K:Atnjurechi08747ipldiefp-rsp-PACSCLIoann wpd 8oem Bw AH BY NY

RN ee
~~ OC OPN DA A FF WH &K OS

protected 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
‘ormation 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.

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
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 REQUES TNO, 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.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it
inappropriately calls for a legal 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 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
proper! 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, plaintiff responds as follows:
Plaintiff currently has documents which show that defendant PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO. is
joint-torfeasor as to his asbestos related injuries.

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.

s. T NO. 25: Plaintiff objects to defendant’s Interrogatory as an
attempt to establish an improper “but for” causation standard. The “but for” test of cause in
fact, which states that a defendant’s conduct is a cause of an injury if the injury would not have
occurred “but for” that conduct, has been expressly rejected by the California Supreme Court.
Mitchell v. Gonzales, (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041. The reason for abandoning the “but for” rule is
that it improperly leads jurors to focus on cause that is spatially or temporally closest to harm.
Id., 54 Cal3d at 1052. The “substantial factor” test is a clearer rule of causation which
addresses situations such as concurrent causes, The Supreme Court, in considering an action
for asbestos-related disease, specifically held that the “substantial factor” test is satisfied where
a plaintiff shows that defendant’s negligence or defective product, in reasonable medical
probability, was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos that the
plaintiff inhaled, and hence the risk of developing an asbestos-related disease. Rutherford v.
Owens Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 954. In setting forth this mandatory standard in
asbestos cases, the Supreme Court implicitly Prohibited evidence designed to parse out a given
defendant's participation from the aggregate dose. Subject to and without watving said
objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein
Response to Request No. 13, above.

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

KAinjured\108747pid\fp-rsp-PACSCI Joann. wpd_ 9Cowen Aw ek WD

10

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

RESPONSE. 10 REQUEST NO. 26: Plaintiff objects to defendant’s Interrogatory as an
attempt to establish an improper “but for” causation standard. The “but for” test of cause in
fact, which states that a defendant’s conduct is a cause of an injury if the injury would not have
occurred “but for” that conduct, has been expressly rejected by the California Supreme Court.
Mitchell v. Gonzales, (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, The reason for abandoning the “but for” rule is
that it improperly leads jurors to focus on cause that is spatially or temporally closest to harm.
Id., 54 Cal.3d at 1052. “substantial factor” test is a clearer rule of causation which
addresses situations such as concurrent causes. The Supreme Court, in considering an action
for asbestos-related disease, specifically held that the “substantial factor” test is satisfied where
a plaintiff shows that defendant’s negligence or defective product, in reasonable medical
probability, was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos that the
plaintiff inhaled, and hence the risk of developing an asbestos-related disease. Rutherford v.
Owens Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 954. In setting forth this mandatory standard in
asbestos cases, the Supreme Court implicitly prohibited evidence designed to parse out a given
defendant’s participation from the aggregate dose. Subject to and without waiving said
objections, plainti responds as follows: Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference herein
Response to Request No. 13, above.

____ 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; 27: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that the
I

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.

IN REQUEST NO. 28: Plaintiff objects that this Request is in violation of
General Order No. 41, which prohibits discovery of employment records, medical records, and
related documents except through Designated Defense Counsel. 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 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: Plaintiff currently identifies his medical
records and billings, equally available to defendant through coordinating defense counsel Berry

and Berry.

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. 29: Plaintiff objects that this Request is in violation of
General Order No. 41, which prohibits discovery of employment records, medical records, and
related documents except through Designated Defense Counsel. Plaintiff also objects to this
Request on the grounds and to the extent that it secks 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 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 currently identifies his medical

K Nnjured\108747\pidcfp-rsp-PACSC1 Joann. wpd 102 oe WHA WB WN =

Rt tee
oC Me UAH HON SE Ss

records and billings, equally available to defendant through coordinating defense counsel Berry
and Berry.

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. 30: Plaintiff objects that this Request is in violation of
General Order No. 41, which prohibits discovery of employment records, medical records, and
related documents except through Designated Defense Counsel. 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 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. § 203 -010 et seq. Subject to and without
waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff currently identifies his medical
records, equally available to defendant through coordinating defense counsel Berry and Berry.
Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.230, plaintiff, after making a diligent search 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. 31: 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.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32: 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 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. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff is not currently 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.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: 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 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. Subject to and without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as
follows: Not applicable. plaintiff is not recipient of medicare at this time.

it
Mt
Mf

KAnjured\108747pid\rip-rsp-PACSCL Joann. wpd ilOo ma AH FF WN

Ny NY YY Y YN WwW teh meet ke -
BRRRRBEBRESSEUEBTAREBDEES

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
o1

that there is no further relevant and/or
reserves the right to supplement

Dated:

KAinjured\\08747pidirfp-rsp- PACSCI Joann. wpd

responsive documents to produce at this time. Plaintiff
se, as investigation and discovery are continuing.

BRAYTON®PURCKLL LLP

h
Attornpys for Plaintiffs

122

“~ A OM St MH ODM OH

2

_

K:Forms\VERIRVER2FOLW.WPD 1

3

mt HO
ee

sssi-seu (Ste)
6919-8966 VINHOAITVD ‘OLWAON
6919 XOK Od
GVO ONIGNV1 HSM 7Zz
ASYTLY SASNYOLLY
ATT THIOUNE PNOLAVUR

19
20
21

22
23

24
25
26

27
28PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

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

on JUN 40 2011

PLAINTIFF JOANN BRECKLER’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT PACIFIC
SCIENTIFIC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

, | served the within:

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

‘oll Iplaced in a sealed envelope, postage thereon prepaid, addressed and served as
|) follows:

PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
Gordon & Rees LLP

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
| San Diego, CA 92101

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

Executed JUN 4 02011 , at Petaluma, California.

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

|| Rodrick Breckler v. Asbestos Defendants (B¢P)
| San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-08-274566

28

I} KAtnjured\108747pichefp-rap- PACSCL Joann, wpd 13EXHIBIT EMrreneu. B. MaLAcHOMSK! GORDON & REES tp

MMALACHOWSKI@GORDONREES.COM

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
101 W. BROADWay, SUITE 2000
SAN Dieco, CA 92101
PHONE: (619) 696-6700
FAX: (619) 696-7124
'WWW.GORDONREES.COM
June 17, 2011
Via First Class Mail & Facsimile
Justin S. Fish, Esq.
BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
222 Rush Landing Road
P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

Re: — Breckler v. Pacific Scientific Co., et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-08-274566

Dear Mr. Fish:

This firm is in possession of Plaintiffs’ responses to Pacific Scientific’s requests for
-production of documents, set no. 1. While responses are appreciated, I note that some of
Plaintiffs’ individual responses are inadequate. Please consider this correspondence an attempt to
meet and confer in regards to these defects, as we have no desire to burden the Court with
unnecessary law and motion.

This letter concems Plaintiffs’ responses to reque