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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Ce S&B AH Rw hw

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD
PO BOX 6169
MOVATO. CALIFORNIA 94948-6169
(415) 898-1555

BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

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

RON G. ARCHER, ESQ., S. 'B. #189429 ELECTRONICALLY

BRAYTON*“*PURCELL LLP

Attomeys at Law FILED

222 Rush Landing Road Superior Court of California,

P.O, Box 6169 County of San Francisco

Novato, California 94948-6169 JAN 28 2009

(415) 898-1555 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ

Attomeys for Plaintiffs Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

RODRICK BRECKLER and ASBESTOS
JOANN BRECKLER, No. 274566
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION’S PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN
OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

vs,

eee

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)

Date: March 3, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 610, Commissioner Bruce E. Chan
Trial Date: None Set
Date Action Filed: March 12, 2008
Pursuant to Rule 3.1020 of the California Rules of Court, plaintiffs hereby submit the
following Separate Statement of Disputed Issues Re: Production of defendant UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION’s Custodian of Records and Person(s) Most
Knowledgeable for deposition. This statement sets forth the deposition categories verbatim,
defendant’s responses verbatim, and the reasons why plaintiffs’ discovery requests should be
compelled.
GENERAL ECTIONS
DEFENDANT’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS
L Plaintiffs’ Notice is unduly burdensome and harassing, in that the date, time, and
location for deposition was unilaterally chosen and noticed by plaintiffs. Furthermore, the

KM jureds1.08747 es UNTECH one-day 1
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
GORORATION’ 'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFoY @ NAR mB BW

depositions are scheduled one hour apart, making it impossible to comply with the Notice. UTC
is unable to identify and produce its Custodian of Records and Person Most Qualified by the date
chosen, as there was insufficient time provided ind such date was not cleared with counsel for

2. Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer with counsel for UTC regarding the date, time,
and location for these depositions.
. UTC objects to this Notice on the grounds that UTC’s Custodian of Records and

Person Most Qualified, as to the matters set forth in this Notice, are not located in California.
Further, the requested documents are not located in California and UTC is not obligated to
transport the documents to Califomia. UTC does not have a principal place of business or.
executive office in California. UTC's principal business office is located in Connecticut and
plaintiffs may not compel the deposition in California of UTC’s Custodian of Records or Person
Most Qualified on the matters identified in this Notice.

4, Plaintiffs’ Notice as drafted is overbroad and unduly burdensome. UTC will
produce one or more Custodians of Records and Persons Most Qualified for deposition, in their
states of residence, to respond to these inquiries and requests relating to Mr. Breckler's alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products, but limited to the types of UTC products on or around
which Mr. Breckler claims to have worked, the specific UTC jobsites at which Mr. Breckler
claims to have worked, and the periods during which Mr. Breckler claims to have worked at, on
or around such jobsites/products. Counsel for UTC will meet and confer with counsel for
plaintiffs so that UTC designee(s) may be made available for deposition at a mutually agreeable
time and place.

5. Plaintiffs’ Notice is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, in that its categories are unlimited in time and/or scope, and
requests that UTC address dates outside the period at issue in this action and/or products not at
issue in this action.

6. UTC further objects to the extent that the categories of the Notice assume facts
not in evidence, are irrelevant, and are-cumulative or duplicative in nature.

UTC further objects to the extent that the categories of the Notice are overbroad,
vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, thereby failing to describe with particularity the
information and/or documents being requested.

8. UTC further objects to the extent that the categories of the Notice seck the
production of attorney-client and/or attorney work product information.

9. UTC further objects to the extent that the categories of the Notice seek information
and/or documents protected from disclosure by UTC’s and/or others’ rights of privacy, under
(among other things) the Constitution of California and the United States Constitution.

10. UTC further objects to the extent that the categories of the Notice seek
information that is in the public domain, and therefore equally available to plaintiffs.

11. UTC further objects to the extent that the categories of the Notice seek
proprietary, trade secret, and/or confidential information. .

12, _ UTC’s investigation of the issues contemplated by the Notice is ongoing. UTC
reserves the right to amend these responses, and to introduce additional information, documents,
or objections as necessary. . Co

13. UTC incorporates each of these Preliminary Objections and Limitations into each
of the responses set forth below.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS _
Where UTC"s designated witnesses reside is irrelevant, as plaintiffs’ deposition notice is
directed to UTC, not to individual persons. C.C.P. §2025.250(a} concerns the deposition of a
natural person, not a corporate entity, and is therefore inapplicable to UTC. Since UTC’s
principal place of business is in White Plains, New York, and not in the State of California,
C.C.P. §§ 2025.250(b) and {c) do not apply. C.C.P, §2025.250(d) holds that if an organization
has not designated a principal place of business in California, the deposition shall be taken either
within the action where the county is pending, or within 75 miles of any of the organization’s
executive or business office in California. Since this case is pending in the City and County of

KeAtnjuredh10847 ge ANTTECH wre cep med 2 .
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 10 COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES:
CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFCD MO NW DH A RB WN

moN NY MN NM BY RD mm
awa aA am RB Ye NS KF SO wm ID HW BR WN =

San Francisco, plaintiffs’ noticing of the deposition in San Francisco is proper.

,, his objection does not articulate which documents, if any, “call for the opinion of an
expert”. Defendant does not articulate how, whether or why any of the documents requested by
plaintiff “call for the opinion of an expert, Defendant docs not offer any altemative date on whic!
said expert might be available for deposition. .

Further, plaintiffs’ Notice was properly and timely served pursuant to C.C.P.

§ 2025.270(a), which states that an oral deposition shall be scheduled for date at least ten days
after service of the deposition notice. Plaintiffs’ Notice was timely served and set. UTC has now
had additional time to comply with plaintiffs’ Notice by preparing and producing responsive
documents.

Defendant does not articulate which, if any, of the Categories it believes are overbroad,
“unduly burdensome” and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, nor does it cite any authority in support of its claim that plaintiffs’ Notice imposes
requirements beyond those set by the California’Code of Civil Procedure.

__ Plaintiffs’ Requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to discover the nature and
extent of UTC’s activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and documents
sought.

Defendant’s objections on the ground of undue burden do not meet the legal. standard
outlined in Brotsky v, State Bar (1962) 56 Cal.2d 287, 304. The Brotsky court held that when a
party responding to a request for production of documents objects that the request is unduly

urdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the
records available so that the requesting party may conduct the search. UTC has not offered
anything beyond an unsupported assertion to show that plaintiffs’ requests are truly “unduly
burdensome,” nor has it offered to make documents available so that plaintiffs may assume the
burden of actually conducting a search.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attomey without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Corporation vy. Superior Court
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397. The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their
Notice were not intended to seek the disclosure privileged information. If UTC deems it
necessary to assert such privileges, plaintiffs merely request a privilege log or other listing of
documents be provided; the contents of privileged documents may be withheld, but their
existence may not. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285.

Defendant does not state which, if any, of plaintiffs’ Categories allegedly seck documents
not in UTC’s possession, custody or control, or requires UTC to obtain information from public
soutces or unrelated entities. Plaintiff's Notice complies with C.C.P. § 2017.010, which states
that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, cleseription, nature, custody, condition, and
jocation of any document, tangible thing, or land or other property.” The scope of a request for
information and documents is not limited to things currently m UTC’s custody or control, but
encompasses information and documents reasonably available to UTC. When a request for
documents is made, however, the witness or someone in authority is expected to make an inquiry
of everyone who might be holding responsive documents or everyone who knows where suc!
documents might be held. Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1396.

Defendant does not identify which, if any, of plaintiffs’ Categories allegedly seek
documents that are both irrelevant and equally available to plaintiffs through unspecified “other
sources”. As previously stated, the scope of a request for information and documents is not
limited to things currently in UTC’s custody or control, but encompasses information and
documents reasonably available to UTC. When a request for documents is made, however, the

-witnegs or someone in authority is expected to make an inquiry of everyone who might be

holding responsive documents or everyone who knows where such documents might be held.
Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1396.Tn any case, whether some

olga one nrEertsge ded 3

PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES

CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST POR PRODUCTION OF
“UMENCO 0 SN A DW BR WwW Ne

mth
CoP O OB RI DR th Be BW Ne

documents may be “equally available” is not a justification for UTC to refuse to comply with a
sane’ of Deposition, nor to produce other documents which are not equally available to

To sustain an objection to production based on burden or oppression, the objection part
must show by detailed evidence showing precisely how much work's required to answer oF ¥
produce documents; conclusionary statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Compan:
v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available,
not has it offered anything other than boilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome,
oppressive” as justification for its claims of burden. Vague statements that there are “large
amounts of highly detailed information” that would “not further Plaintiffs’ discovery” do not
sustain this objection. If this information is so voluminous that it cannot be reasonably compiled,
how can UTC possibly have reviewed it so that it can accurately state this information would
“not further Plaintiffs® discovery”? It is impossible to tell from defendant’s Objections why this
may be, as there is no declaration stating how many documents there are, how they are kept, the
process that would be needed to review such documents, the cost to defendant of the review, or
why the documents cannot simply be made available to plaintiffs so that they may suffer the
burden of the search.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an
answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia

casting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,

confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice, To date, the Court’s Register of Actions does not show that UTC has
sought a protective order in this case.

burden is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by
detailed evidence showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce
documents, conclusionary statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Company v.
Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor
has it offered anything other than boilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive”
as justification for its claims of burden. ~

Plaintiffs’ Notice is specifically and narrowly drawn to lead to the discovery of :
admissible evidence relevant to plaintiffs’ claims against UTC. It is well-established that the
scope of permissible discovery is very broad, and that the Courts are liberally to interpret the
discovery statutes in favor of allowing discovery. Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56
Cal App.2d 355, 378. Moreover, depositions are to be taken as a matter of right. Id. at 388.

Defendant offers no authority for its insistence that before plaintiffs are permUTCed to
take the deposition of a party to this case, that they must prove that the information sought
“cannot be obtained by less intrusive means”. C.C.P. §2019.030, cited by UTC in support of this
baseless objection, does not hold that plaintiffs must demonstrate that “the documents sought
cannot be obtained by less obtrusive means” it gives the Court authority to restrict discovery
pursuant to a Motion for Protective Order, accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration from
the party seeking the order. No such Motion for Protective Order has been filed by UTC.

C.C-P. §2025.010 is quite clear that any party may obtain the oral deposition of any part
to the action. The purpose of discovery is to allow parties to uncover relevant facts which they do
not already know. Plaintiffs would not find it necessary to depose UTC and request the
production of documents and tangible things if plaintiffs already possessed all information,
documents and tangible things relating to their claims against UTC. The fact that plaintiffs chose
to pursue their right to discovery through deposition does not make plaintiffs’ Notice oppressive
or unduly burdensome.

It is well established that the scope of permissible discovery is very broad, and that the
Courts are liberally to interpret the discovery statutes in favor of allowing discovery. Greyhound
v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.App.2d 345, 378. Moreover, depositions are to be taken as a
matter of right. Id. at 388. UTC offers no authority for its claim that plaintiffs are restricted to
inquiring about any pericd of time, other than that outlined in plaintiffs’ deposition testimony.

KAinhredg0¢747 se ADYTECH me dep wpe 4

PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
BeRPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTSoO mM ADH RB wD Be

MW NM BR KR RNR RR me
Oo DV A A RB DO UB se BS oO we aA HR DD =

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS - DOCUMENTS SOUGHT

PLAINTIFFS” CATEGORY NO. 1

All WRITINGS PERTAINING TO any and all ACP designed, manufactured, rebranded,
sold, supplied and/or distributed by YOU at YOUR facility on Arques Avenue in Sunnyvale,
California between 1961 and through 1968, inclusive. ‘

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 1 .

_ UTC incorporates all of its general objections raised above as though fully incorporated
herein. In addition to the General Objections, this category seeks inadmissible and irrelevant
information; is unduly burdensome and oppressive; and unreasonably vague and ambiguous as to|
“designed, manufactured, rebranded, sold, supplied and/or distributed." UTC objects on the -
grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. UTC further objects on. the grounds that the requested documents are not identified
with reasonable particularity. Finally, UTC objects to the extent that the request seeks protected
confidential and proprietary trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work product doctrine,

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 1

Defendant’s Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
rote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do not comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound; defendant appears to have made a typographical eror in objecting to
“geography [none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attorney without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San ,
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397, The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their
Notice were not intended to seek the disclosure of privileged information.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an
answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,
confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely, it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice. .

All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of _
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to discover the nature and
extent of defendant’s activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and documents
sought. UTC’s objections on the ground of “undue burden” do not meet the legal standard
outlined in Brotsky v, State Bar (1962) 56 Cal_2d 287, 304. The Brotsky court held that when a

arty responding to a Fequest for production of documents objects that the request is unduly
burdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the
records available so that the requesting party may conduct the search. Furthermore, the burden
is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by detailed evidence
showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce documents; conclusion:
statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Company v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d
407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor has it offered anything other than

A Ninoreani0e74 ys UN TECH te dep wed 5

PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SLIPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGFABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
BOCUMENTSOo 2S a DH wm Bm WwW oN

10

poilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive” as justification for its claims of
urden.

PLAINTIFFS’ CATEGORY NO. 2

All labels, logos, pictures, drawings, and any other WRITINGS located on any box,
carton, bag, container, or other packaging PERTAINING TO any and all ACP designed,
manufactured, rebranded, sold, supplied and/or distributed by YOU at YOUR facility on Arques
Avenue in Sunnyvale, California between 1961 and through 1968, inclusive.

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 2

incorporates all of its general objections raised above as though fully incorporated
herein. UTC objects on the grounds that the request assumes facts not in esidencs, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UTC
further objects on the grounds that the requested documents are not identified with reasonable
particularity. Furthermore, the request is unreasonably vague and ambiguous, especially as to the
terms "labels, logos, pictures, drawings" and "box, carton, bag, container, or other ackaging."
Finally, UTC objects to the extent that the request seeks protected confidential an proprietary
trade secret information, and to the extent it secks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 2

Defendant's Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
rote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do not comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound; defendant appears to have made a typographical error in objecting to
“geography {none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attorney without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v, Superior Court (1951} 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Grevhound Corporation v. Superior Court
{1961) 56 Cal.2d 397, The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their
Notice were not intended to seek the disclosure of privileged information.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an
answering party should seck a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,
confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice, .

All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to‘discover the nature and
extent of defendant’s activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and documents
sought. UTC’s objections on the ground of “undue burden” do not meet the legal standard
outlined in Brotsky v, State Bar (1962) 56 Cal.2d 287, 304. The Brotsky court held that when a
party responding to a request for production of documents objects that the request is unduly
burdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the
records available so that the requesting party may conduct the search. Furthermore, the burden
is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by detailed evidence
showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce documents; conclusionary

X Ainjured\108747%ss- UNTECH mte-dep sod 6

PLAINTIFES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPE DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES.
CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS oeOC 6 NY A WM BR BW Dm

NON BP NR BY NR NR RR mmm
SG ~ Ww A A FF YN = So we WY A DH BBWS 2

statements are not sufficient. West Pico Fumiture Coninsay v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d

407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor has it offered anything other than

boilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive” as justification for its claims of
purden.

PLAINTIFFS’ CATEGORY NO. 3

A sample or exemplar of a box, carton, bag, container, or other package PERTAINING
TO each ACP designed, manufactured, rebranded, sold, supplied and/or distributed by YOU at
YOUR facility on Arques Avenue in Sunnyvale, California between 1961 and through 1968,
Inclusive.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3

UTC incorporates all of its general objections raised above as though fully incorporated
herein. UTC objects on the grounds that the request assumes facts not in evidence, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UTC
further ebjects on the grounds'‘that the requested items are not identified with reasonable
particularity. Furthermore, the request is unreasonably vague and ambiguous, especially as to the
terms "sample, exemplar, box, carton, bag, container or other package” and "designed,
manufactured, rebranded, sold, supplied and/or distributed.” Fimally, UTC objects to the extent
that the request seeks protected confidential and proprietary trade secret information, and to the
extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work
product doctrine.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3

Defendant’s Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
rote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do not comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound; defendant appears to have made a 'ypographical error in objecting to
“geography {none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

© purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attorney without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, if is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397. The categories of information and documents plamtiffs provided im their
Notice were not intended to seek the disclosure of privileged information.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an

answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia

i tem. Inc. v. i (1968) 263 Cal-App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,
confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice. . :

All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to discover the nature and
extent of defendant's activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and documents
sought. UTC’s objections on the ground of “undue burden” do not meet the legal standard
outlined in Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 56 Cal.2d 287, 304. The Brotsky court held that when a

arty responding to a request for production of documents objects that the request is unduly
Burdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the

XMajured\ 08747Ags- UN TECH mec dep. wpe 7

PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
SORPRRATION’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFNe

=~ OD Oo YA wA Bb Ww

Won

records available so that the requesting party may conduct the search. Furthermore, the burden
is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by detailed evidence
showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce documents; conclusionary
statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Company v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d
407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor has it offered anything other than
boilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive” as justification for its claims of
wurden.

_ Defendant’s objection that the Notice “assumes facts not in evidence” is not a proper

objection.

PLAINTIFFS’ CATEGORY NO. 4

All WRITINGS PERTAINING TO and/or identifying any entity that sold, supplied or
distributed any raw ASBESTOS fiber and/or ACP to YOU at YOUR facility on Arques Avenue
in Sunnyvale, California between 1961 and through 1968, inclusive.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 4

UTC incorporates all of its general objections raised above as though fully incorporated
herein. UTC objects on the grounds that the request assumes facts not in evidence, unduly:
burdensome, unreasonably vague and ambiguous, and not reasonably calcu lated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. UTC further objects on the grounds that the requested
documents are not identified with reasonable particularity. In addition, these requests call for the
retrieval and search of millions of documents from the creation of UTC up to the present. Such
requests are financially burdensome and oppressive and such burden outweighs the likelihood
that the requested production may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UTC objects to
the extent that the request seeks protected confidential and proprietary trade secret information,
and to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney
work product doctrine.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 4

Defendant’s Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
rote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do not comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound; defendant appears to have made a 'ypographical error in objecting to
“geography [none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attormey without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Corporation v. Superior €
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397. The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their
Notice were not intended to seek the disclosure of privileged information.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an
answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d £2, 23. Moreover,
confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice.

All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to discover the nature and

K Mnjured\ 0822 746-UNTECH-mte-sep apd, 8
PLAINTIFFS” SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
SGRPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFSo em WD hw BR we Dm

extent of defendant’s activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and docum
sought. UTC’s objections on the ground of “undue burden’ do not meet the legal standard nis
outlined in Brotsky v, State Bar (1962) 56 Cal.2d 287, 304. The Brolsiey court held that when a
party responding to a request for production of documents objects that the tequest is unduly
burdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the
records available so that the requesting arty may conduct the search. Furthermore, the burden
is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by detailed evidence
showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce documents; conclusionary
statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Company v. Superior Court (1 961) 56 Cal. 2d
407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor has it offered anything other than
poilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive” as justification for its claims of
arden.

____, Defendant’s objection that the Notice “assumes facts not iri evidence” is not a proper

objection.

PLAINTIFFS’ CATEGORY NO, 5

All WRITINGS PERTAINING TO your first awareness (including, without limitation,
the date of your first awareness) that there were health risks associated with exposure to
ASBESTOS and/or ACP.

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 5

_ UTC incorporates ail of its general objections raised above as though filly incorporated
herein. UTC objects on the grounds that the request assumes facts not in evidence, is overbroad
as to time and scope, unduly burdensome, unreasonably vague and ambiguous, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UTC further objects on the
grounds that the requested documents are not identified with reasonable particularity. In addition,
these requests cal for the retrieval and search of millions of documents from the création of UTC]
up to the present. Such requests are financially burdensome and oppressive and such burden
outweighs the likelihood that the requested production may lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Furthermore, the request is unreasonably vague and ambiguous, especially as to the
terms "awareness" "health risks" and "exposure." Finally, UTC objects to the extent that the
request seeks protected confidential and proprietary trade secret information, and to the extent it
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product
doctrine.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 5

Defendant’s Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
rote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do not comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound; defendant appears to have made a typographical error in objecting to
“geography [none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

Phe purpose of attorney-client privilege is te encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attorney without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Corporation v. Superio ut C so rt
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397. The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their
Notice were not intended to seek the disclosure of privileged information.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an
answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia

Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,

KAlnjurch 10874 AesAINTECH rede pd 9

PLAINTIFFS” SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES:
SORPORATON'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
BOCoC UWS KD A BR BW Ye

confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice,

___All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to discover the nature and
extent of defendant’s activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and documents
sought. UTC’s objections on the ground of “undue burden” do not meet the legal standard
outlined in Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 56 Cal.2d 287, 304. The Brotsky court held that when a
part Tesponding to a request for production of documents objects that the request is unduly

urdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the
records available so thal the requesting party may conduct the search. Furthermore, the burden
is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by detailed evidence
showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce documents; conclusiona
statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Company v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal2d
407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor has it offered anything other than
pollerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive” as justification for its claims of

urden.

_ _, Defendant’s objection that the Notice “assumes facts not in evidence” is not a proper

objection.

PLAINTIFFS’ CATEGORY NO. 6
All deeds, certificates of occupation, insurance policies or other WRITINGS
PERTAINING TO and/or identifying the owner(s) of the PREMISES.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 6

UTC incorporates all of its general objections raised above as though fully incorporated
herein. UTC objects on the grounds that the request assumes facts not in evidence, is overbroad
as to time and scope, unduly burdensome, unreasonably vague and ambiguous, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UTC further objects on the
grounds that the requested documents are not identified with reasonable particularity. Tn addition,
these requests call for the retrieval and search of millions of documents from the creation of UTC|
up to the present. Finally, UTC objects to the extent that the request seeks protected confidential
and proprietary trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 6

Defendant’s Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
rote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do not comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound, defendant appears to have made a typographical error in objecting to
“geography [none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attorney without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Comoratign v. Superior Court
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397. The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their
Notice were not intended to seck the disclosure of privileged information. :

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an

K.Atnjured\(08747.es-UNTECH c-dep.w 10

PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES:
CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTSoC wm YN DW Bw wv

10

answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,
confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice.

___All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activities, deliveries and knowledge. This
information is relevant to plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are attempting to discover the nature and
extent of defendant’s activities, if any, relevant to each category of information and documents
sought. UTC’s objections on the ground of “undue burden” do not meet the legal standard
outlined in Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 56 Cal.2d 287, 304. The Brotsky court held that when a
party responding to a request for production of documents objects that the request is unduly
burdensome, the responding party must either suffer the burden of the search or else make the
records available so that the requesting party may conduct the search. Furthermore, the burden
is on the objecting party to sustain an objection to burden or oppression by detailed evidence
showing precisely how much work is required to answer or produce documents; conclusiona
statements are not sufficient. West Pico Furniture Company v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d
407. UTC has neither offered to make its records available, nor has it offered anything other than
poilerplate recitations of “harassing, burdensome, oppressive” as justification for its claims of

en.

Defendant’s objection that the Notice “assumes facts not in evidence” is not a proper
objection.

PLAINTIFFS’ CATEGORY NO. 7
All blueprints, building plans, specifications, architectural drawings, as-built drawings or
other WRITINGS PERTAINING TO the original construction of the PREMISES.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 7

UTC incorporates all of its general objections raised above as though fully incorporated
herein. UTC objects on the grounds that the request assumes facts not in evidence, is overbroad
as to time and scope, unduly burdensome, unreasonably vague and ambiguous, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UTC further objects on the
grounds that the requested documents are not identified with reasonable particularity.
Furthermore, the request is unreasonably vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms
“original construction." Finally, UTC objects to the extent that the request seeks protected
confidential and proprietary trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO.7

Defendant’s Objection is duplicative of its earlier Objections, and is simply a boilerplate,
Tote recitation of every conceivable objection to a deposition notice, without any foundation or
basis supporting these objections. These objections are apparently cut and pasted throughout
defendant’s Objections, without specifically addressing the information or documents requested.
Defendant again objects to definitions as “overbroad, vague and ambiguous,” claims that the
Categories seek privileged documents, are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,” and somehow do net comply with the California Code of Civil Proc
Defendant does not explain why the time period specified by plaintiff is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad or compound; defendant appears to have made a typographical error in objecting to
“geography [none provided],” and does not explain why this is a relevant objection.

The purpose of attomey-client privilege is to encourage the client to make complete
disclosure to his attorney without fear that others may be informed. City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227. Because the privilege tends to suppress
otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed. Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 397. The categories of information and documents plaintiffs provided in their

KAUnjured\108747 ss UNTECH-mie-dep wpd il
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
SORPORATON'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFOo 6 YD AW BB BW eM

= 5

Co me aM DR A BR WH

yoN BYR NM NR NM oN
od Rr BY NM = SD

Notice were not intended to seck the disclosure of privileged information.

Objections based on alleged confidential information are not proper objections; an
answering party should seek a protective order to excuse the duty to answer. Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal-App.2d 12, 23. Moreover,
confidential or trade secret information is not protected from disclosure entirely; it is often
subject to disclosure pursuant to a protective order. In the absence of an appropriate protective
order permitting such information and documents to be withheld, UTC is obligated to comply
with plaintiffs’ Notice. ,

All requests have been narrowly drawn and calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence concerning UTC’s products, activit