Party Discovery: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                WILLIAM M. HAKE, ESQ. (State Bar No. 110956)

Bill.Hake@wilsonelser.com

JEREMY C. BERLA, ESQ. (State Bar No. 2673

Jeremy.Berla@wilsonelser.com

ROCKFORD M. HEARN, ESQ. (State Bar No.

Rockford.Hearn@wilsonelser.com

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

525 Market Street, 17th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2725

Telephone: 415-433-0990

Facsimile: 415-434-1370

Attorneys for Defendants

ADVANCE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.

ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.
BELL PRODUCTS, INC.
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.

EMIL J. WEBER ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COU!

ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
C.C. MOORE & CO., ENGINEERS, et al.,

Defendants.

31)
269074)

ELECTRONIC.

FILE

Superior Court of
County of San
08/12/20
Clerk of the C.
BY:RONNIE OTER!
Deputy Clerk

LY

ITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case No.: CGC-10-275731

JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL
TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID
SCHWARTZ, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR AN
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402

HEARING
Complaint: December 17, 2010
Trial Date: August 10, 2015

0:

JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGI. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s claimed causal link between colon cancer and asbestos is not
accepted by the scientific community and is unsupported and contradicted by their own expert.
Dr. David Schwartz (hereinafter, “Dr. Schwartz”), an expert witness designated by Plaintiffs
Robert Ross and Jean Ross (hereinafter collectively, “Plaintiffs”), has no foundation for
testifying about the purported causal link between colon cancer and asbestos exposure.

The only evidence that Plaintiffs have supporting their allegation that Plaintiff Robert
Ross’ colon cancer was caused by asbestos is the testimony of Dr. Schwartz. However, Dr.

Schwartz is not qualified to provide opinions as to causation for colon cancer and, in fact, has

been previously excluded from testifying at trial on this exact issue. Furthermore, Dr. Schwartz
has testified that he told Plaintiffs’ counsel he is “not comfortable” opining on asbestos
causation in colon cancer cases. Given his background, any testimony Dr. Schwartz offers
would be nothing more than speculation and its prejudicial value would far surpass any probative|
value it may provide.

Accordingly, before trial and the empanelling of a jury, all of the Defendants in this
matter (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) jointly move in /imine for an order excluding Dr.
Schwartz, or in the alternative, for an Evidence Code Section 402 hearing.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Dr. Schwartz’s Testimony In The Present Case Plainly Illustrates That He Is
Not Qualified To Offer Expert Opinions As To Colon Cancer Causation.

Dr. Schwartz was deposed in this case on May 9, 2013, May 28, 2013, and June 20, 2013
(Deposition of David Schwartz, M.D. , San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275731, Volume
I, taken May 9, 2013, attached to the Declaration of Jeremy C. Berla as Exhibit A in Support of
the present Motion (hereinafter, “Berla Decl.”); Deposition of David Schwartz, M.D., San
Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275731, Volume II, taken May 28, 2013, attached to Berla
Decl. as Exhibit B; Deposition of David Schwartz, M.D., San Francisco Superior Court Case
No. 275731, Volume III, taken June 20, 2013, attached to the Berla Decl. as Exhibit C.) Dr.

eee 7
JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGSchwartz testified he spent a total of three hours preparing for the depositions in the instant
matter, including a review of materials supplied by Plaintiffs’ counsel, a literature review, and
participation in the February 7, 2012 deposition in the Robert and Jean Ross vy, Allis Chalmers
Corp., et al., (San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 274099) matter. (Berla Decl., Exhibit A at
pp. 10:6-21.) Dr. Schwartz testified he has no knowledge of the following: whether Plaintiff has
a history of colon cancer; if Plaintiff ever suffered or suffers from ulcerative colitis; if Plaintiff
ever suffered or is suffering from polyps; if Plaintiff has a family history of colorectal polyps; or
if Plaintiff's diet, alcohol intake, or smoking history contributed to his colon cancer. (Berla
Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 18:9-22; 34:17-35:10.) Furthermore, Dr. Schwartz testified that he never
examined or spoke with Plaintiff, or reviewed his x-rays, CT scans, pulmonary function tests or
pathology specimens. (Berla Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 32:5-25.)

Dr. Schwartz testified he is not a pathologist, an epidemiologist, an expert in colon

cancer, or an expert in the treatment of colon cancer. (Berla Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 23:13-16;

26:21-23.)

Q You have never done any research regarding the colon, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you have not received any specialized training specific to the
GI tract, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You have not conducted or participated in any epidemiological
studies to determine whether or not asbestos exposure causes colon
cancer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q You have not conducted or participated in any animal studies
exposing animals to asbestos in a way that would cause any
gastrointestinal abnormalities, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Qa. You have not conducted or participated in any animal studies for
purposes of determining whether or not asbestos exposure causes
colon cancer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You have not received a research grant to study whether or not
asbestos causes colon cancer, correct?

A. That is correct.

Qa. And you have not published any peer-reviewed literature regarding

asbestos exposure as a cause of colon cancer, correct?
2.
rr DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGoc 0D wm ND HW RB WN

RB oN NN YN NK KN HS Be Be Be Be Be Be Be eB em
et A HF BN = Seo we NAY DH BW HY

A. That is correct.

Q. And you have not published any peer-reviewed paper on the
disease colon cancer itself, correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And you have not published any peer-reviewed paper on any
malignancies within the gastrointestinal tract, correct?

A. Yes,

Q You have not written any textbook or book chapters on asbestos
exposure as a cause of colon cancer, correct?

A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. You have not participated in any editorials or reviews relating to
the investigation of whether or not asbestos causes colon cancer,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You have never performed any meta-analysis of data regarding
asbestos as a cause for colorectal cancer, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you have not submitted any written criticism of written
publications which suggest asbestos is not a cause of colorectal
cancer, correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And you have never conducted a survey of the majority of
available medical literature regarding whether asbestos exposure is
or is not a cause of colon cancer, correct?

A. Yes.

(Berla Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 27:24-30:2.)

Dr. Schwartz further testified he has no knowledge of the physiologic response of cells to

asbestos fibers relating to the gastrointestinal tract and colon:

Q. Has anybody shown that asbestos fibers are complete carcinogens
for human colon cancer?

A. I don’t know.

Q. You write, Every asbestos fiber that comes into contact with a cell
in the respiratory system or gastrointestinal system may on a more
likely than not basis elicit a physiological response from the body.
Has anybody shown that deposition of an asbestos fiber in the
gastrointestinal system elicits a physiologic response from the
body that is considered abnormal?

[Objections]

[A.] _ I was referring to physiological response from a cell of the body.

Q. Has anybody shown that a human gastrointestinal cell has a
physiologic response to the presence of an asbestos fiber?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Has anybody shown that an asbestos fiber causes genetic damage

to a human colon cell?

Poe eee SEs oe
JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARING[Objections]

[A.] | Lam assuming that it has in culture, but I don’t know for sure.

Q What is that assumption based on?

A The fact that it does it to many different cells and causes DNA
damage in many different cells. So I don’t see why it would not do
that in culture with colon cancer -- with colon cells, excuse me.

Q. Has anybody specifically demonstrated genetic damage to a human
colon cell after the induction of an asbestos fiber?

A. I would have to review the literature.

Q. Then you write here that any fiber contacting a cell may cause
inflammatory reactions. Has anybody shown that an asbestos fiber
in a human colon cell causes an inflammatory reaction in that cell?

[Objections]

[A.] Certainly in culture, yes.

Q. Who has shown that in culture with human colon cells?

A. I didn’t say with human colon cells.

Q My question was specific to human colon cells.

A. I didn’t realize that. I would have to review the literature to report
what has been shown.

Q Has anybody shown an inflammatory reaction in the tissue of the
human colon?

[Objections]

[A.] | I don’t -- I don’t know the answer to that.
(Berla Decl., Exhibit C at pp. 127:1-129:2.)
B. Dr. Schwartz Has Testified That He Is No Longer Willing To Offer Expert

Opinions Regarding Colon Cancer Causation And He Has Also Been
Excluded From Testifying Regarding The Same In Other Cases.

Since his 2013 deposition testimony in the present case, Dr. Schwartz testified in a
separate 2014 case that he is no longer willing to testify as to colon cancer causation: “I told
[Brayton Purcell] that I was not comfortable supporting cases outside my areas of expertise,
which are lung disease related to asbestos-related exposure -- asbestos exposures.” (Depositio
of David Schwartz, M.D., Spates v. Amcord, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC493752, Volume II, taken January 17, 2014, attached to Berla Decl. as Exhibit D at p. 61:13-
21 (emphasis added).)

In addition to admitting that he is not qualified to testify as to causation of colorectal
cancers, supra, Dr. Schwartz has also previously been excluded by courts from testifying

regarding the same. For example, he was excluded from testifying on this exact issue in

ED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGco oem NIN DH BF BW NY

bot

Jeraldine Nicholson, et al. v. Asbestos Defendants, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC413220. The court in Nicholson concluded that Dr. Schwartz did not have the foundation to
form an opinion that colon cancer bears a causal connection to asbestos exposure, and Dr.
Schwartz did not indicate anything he relied on in that case was of the type that may be
reasonably relied upon by an expert in forming such an opinion. (Reporter’s Daily Transcript of
Proceedings in Jeraldine Nicholson, et al. v. Asbestos Defendants, et al., Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. BC413220 (“Nicholson 402 Hearing”), dated June 24, 2011, at pp. 83:9-84:17,
85:24-86:1, attached to Berla Decl. as Exhibit E.). In excluding Dr. Schwartz, the Nicholson

court noted the following:

Furthermore, as to the foundation that Dr. Schwartz premises his opinion on, he:
A, has never treated a patient with colon cancer; B, has not done any
epidemiological studies; C, has not done any animal studies; D, has not really, to
any extent, surveyed the literature.

(Nicholson 402 Hearing at p. 84:3-8.)

In reaching this conclusion to exclude Dr. Schwartz, the court relied upon the same facts
regarding Dr. Schwartz’s lack of experience, credentials, and underlying foundational work as
Dr. Schwartz testified to during his May 9, 2013 and May 28, 2013 depositions in the instant
matter. (Nicholson 402 Hearing at pp. 16:26-17:17, 17:28-18:2, 18:10-19:24, 20:12-24, 21:12-
17, 85:24-86:1.)

Cc Dr, Schwartz Has Failed To Review The Overwhelming Body of Medical
Literature Concluding That There Is No Causal Relationship Between
Asbestos Exposure and Colorectal Cancer.

The established scientific and medical literature does not support a relationship or
causal connection between asbestos exposure and colon cancer. (See, e.g., Declaration of
Khalil Sheibani, M.D. in Support of Defendant Collins Electrical Company, Inc., et al.’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275731 (“Sheibani Decl.”),
dated February 19, 2013, attached to Berla Decl. as Exhibit F at §§ 4, 6; Declaration of Robert
W. Morgan, M.D. in Support of Defendant Collins Electrical Company, Inc., et al.’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275731 (“Morgan Decl.”), dated

Soe Eo Se
JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGra nw

BBW N

February 8, 2013, attached to Berla Decl. as Exhibit G at {| 5-6.)

Despite the foregoing, and even though Dr. Schwartz acknowledged that there are over
one hundred and one (101) studies examining (and not establishing) the relationship between
asbestos exposure and colon cancer, he failed to analyze these studies in forming his opinion.
(Berla Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 39:23-40:8.) He admitted that the proper scientific approach to
determining causation in the instant matter requires all of the competent scientific studies to be
reviewed, but he testified that he only examined the studies he thought to be relevant. (Berla
Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 40:9-41:2.) Dr. Schwartz also testified he did not examine the most recent!
comprehensive study pertaining to the causal link between colon cancer and asbestos exposure,
completed by the Institute of Medicine in 2006 — despite it being brought to his attention during
previous depositions — because he was “busy doing other things,” and he has no intention of
reviewing it. (Berla Decl., Exhibit B at pp. 59:7-60:6; 61:14-20; 62:1-2; 78:21; 79:4-8.) This
particular failure on Dr. Schwartz’s part to review a study is especially noteworthy since the
2006 IOM Report represents a complete evaluation of the then existing peer-reviewed scientific
and medical literature, and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to infer a causal
connection between asbestos exposure and colorectal cancer. (See Morgan Decl. at ¥5 and

Exhibit “D” attached thereto.)

Dr. Schwartz also admitted that there is a “lot more in the published literature on the
relationship between asbestos and colon cancer than the eight articles [he] listed [in his
bibliography]” and that he was aware of studies where a relationship was not found between
asbestos exposure and colon cancer, but he could not give an explanation as to why those studies
failed to find a relationship. (Berla Decl., Exhibit B at 63:3-10; 69:8-12.) Dr. Schwartz conceded
that he has not read the articles in over a year and was unable to testify as to any specifics
regarding the same. (/d. at pp. 69:13-70:2; 74:6-75:9.)

Ml
Ml
Ml

~6-

JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGIll. ARGUMENT

A. Dr. Schwartz Has No Foundation For Giving Expert Opinion Testimony
About The Purported Causal Link Between Colon Cancer And Asbestos.

The California Supreme Court in Sargon Enterprises, Inc, v. University of Southern
California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747 has explained the trial court’s gate-keeping responsibility with
respect to expert testimony under Evidence Code Sections 801(b) and 802. Sargon, supra, 55
Cal.4th at p. 771. Evidence Code Section 801(b) provides that a court must determine whether
the matter the expert relies on is of a type that an expert can reasonably rely on in forming an
opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates. The Court in Sargon construed this to
mean that the matter relied upon must provide a reasonable basis for the particular opinion
offered, and that an expert opinion based on speculation or conjecture is inadmissible. Id. at p.
770 (emphasis added). However, Sargon went further, stating that pursuant to Evidence Code
Section 802, a trial court may inquire into the reasons for an expert’s opinion and may exclude
expert opinion testimony if it is based on reasons unsupported by the material on which the
expert relies. /d. at p. 771. The trial court conducts an inquiry to determine whether the studies
and other information cited by experts “adequately support the conclusion that the expert’s
general theory or technique is valid.” Jd. at p. 772 (citations omitted).

In the case at hand, Dr. Schwartz admitted that his reliance articles include only a handful]
from the hundred-plus studies in the existing medical and scientific literature regarding the
ultimate lack of connection between asbestos exposure and colon cancer. (Berla Decl., Exhibit B
at pp. 66:8-69:7; Berla Decl., Exhibit A at p. 40:2-6.) In regard to Dr. Schwartz’s list of 25
“Other Reliance Articles,” he testified he does not know whether any of those articles reported
an increased incidence of colon cancer. Jd. As Dr. Schwartz has been cross-examined regarding
the materials on which he relies several times over the past two years, the shortcomings in Dr.
Schwartz’s methods and opinions have been revealed, demonstrating that there is no reasonable
basis for Dr. Schwartz’s opinion that Plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure more likely than not
caused his colon cancer.
|. 27-

JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGAdditionally, Dr. Schwartz testified that he: (a) could not recall the search terms he used
to perform his search for literature regarding the possible association between colon cancer and
asbestos exposure (Berla Decl., Exhibit B at p. 60:8-19); (b) could not explain why he did not
review the 2006 IOM Report during his search (/d. at pp. 59:7-60:6); (c) did not know how many
studies have been conducted that did not find a relationship between asbestos and colon cancer
(dd. at p. 63:17-21); and (d) admitted that there is a “lot more in the published literature on the
relationship between asbestos and colon cancer than the eight articles [he] listed [in his
bibliography].” (Jd. at p, 69:8-12). He further testified that he still has not read the 2006 IOM
Report (which comprehensively evaluated the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature and}
concluded there is insufficient evidence to infer a causal connection between asbestos exposure
and colorectal cancer), but failed to give any reason for not reading it other than that he has
“been busy.” (dd. at pp. 77:22-79:11.) Despite his failure to read the most recent independent,
comprehensive study on this subject, he testified that he considers himself “well informed” on
the topic of asbestos exposure and colon cancer. (Jd.)

Selecting just a few of the over hundred-plus studies and ignoring the majority of the
literature (including a study which constitutes the most recent, independent, comprehensive

evaluation of the available medical and scientific literature) does not support the conclusion that

Dr. Schwartz’s technique is valid. In light of the foregoing, Dr. Schwartz’s conclusions must be

excluded as speculative, conjectural, and lacking a reasonable basis.

B. Dr. Schwartz Is Not Qualified To Testify Or Provide Expert Opinions
As To Colon Cancer Causation.

An expert witness must have “special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education” on the specific subject matter of his testimony. Evid. Code § 720(a). Such expertise
must be shown by affirmative evidence before the witness testifies.. Evid. Code § 720(a), (b).
When deciding whether to admit expert testimony, the Court must “carefully distinguish[] and
limit[]” the witness’s field of expertise. People v. Williams (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1112, 1136

(internal quotes omitted). A witness’s general experience in a particular field may not qualify

-8-

EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGhim to testify on specific, narrow aspects of that field. Expert conclusions based on assumptions
not supported by the evidentiary record or factors which are speculative, remote, or conjectural
have no evidentiary value. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d
1113, 1135.

Dr. Schwartz is simply not qualified to render the opinions and conclusions he has
offered thus far in this case. As confirmed by his testimony on May 9, 2013 and May 28, 2013,
Dr. Schwartz is not an expert on colon cancer or the gastrointestinal tract; he is not an
epidemiologist or a pathologist; he has never published any article relating to colon cancer; he
has never performed any research regarding asbestos and colon cancer; he was unable to provide
any details regarding his “survey of the available literature” during his deposition in this case;
and he has not read or considered the most recent, independent, comprehensive review of the
existing medical and scientific literature regarding asbestos exposure and colon cancer by a
prestigious federal organization. (Berla Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 23:13-16, 26:21-31:19; Berla
Decl., Exhibit B at pp. 54:14-62:2.)

Cc. Alternatively, Moving Defendants Request An Evidence Code Section 402
Hearing Prior To Dr. Schwartz’s Testimony.

If the Court is disinclined at the present time to grant the within Motion excluding Dr.
Schwartz entirely, the Moving Defendants respectfully request an Evidence Code Section 402
hearing before Dr. Schwartz is permitted to testify. The Court has the discretion to determine the|
admissibility of evidence outside of the presence of the jury. Evid. Code § 402(b). As noted,
supra, Dr. Schwartz has previously been excluded by courts from testifying regarding the very
issue at hand — the purported causal link between asbestos exposure and colon cancer — because
he lacked the foundation to form such an opinion. See, e.g., Jeraldine Nicholson, et al. v.
Asbestos Defendants, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC413220.

In light of Dr. Schwartz’s prior exclusion in Nicholson, and his own concession that he is
“not comfortable supporting cases outside [his] areas of expertise, which are lung disease

related to asbestos-related exposure -- asbestos exposures,” reviewing his testimony in an

-9- _ _ E Ee

JOINT DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPECTED TRIAL TESTIMONY AND DEP

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARINGEvidence Code Section 402 hearing would save considerable time and judicial resources. (Berla
Decl., Exhibit D at p. 61:13-21 (emphasis added).)

Therefore, the Moving Defendants request that the Court determine Dr. Schwartz’s
foundation for his testimony and whether it will assist the jury before he is allowed to testify at
trial and/or before his deposition testimony is presented to the jury at the time of trial.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that Dr. Schwartz possesses the
special knowledge, skill, experience, training/education, or requisite underlying foundational
work to form an opinion sufficient to qualify him as an expert to opine as to whether there is any
causal connection between exposure to asbestos and colon cancer. Nor can Plaintiffs
demonstrate that Dr. Schwartz has any sound basis for his opinion.

Therefore, the Moving Defendants respectfully request that the Court exclude the

expected trial testimony and prior deposition testimony of Dr. David Schwartz.

Dated: August 12, 2015 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP

ili :
Jeremy C. Berla, Esq.
Rockford M. Hearn, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants
ADVANCE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS,
INC,
ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.
BELL PRODUCTS, INC.
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.
EMIL J. WEBER ELECTRICAL COMPANY,
INC.

-10-

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SCHWARTZ; ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARING