Document for ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNEA 94948-6169

4415) 808-1585

oem NY KD A BY

10

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436
ASHLEY J. BENSON, ESQ., S.B. #276326 ELECTRONICALLY
BRAYTON#PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law FILED
222 Rush Landing Road
P.O. Box 6169

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

Novato, California 94948-6169 APR 25 2013
(415) 898-1555 Clerk of the Court
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestasTR@braytonlaw,com BY: ALISON AGBAY

Deputy Clerk

Attomeys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASBESTOS
No. CGC-10-275731

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS;

Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit |

attached to the Summary Complaint
herein; and DOES 1-8500.

eee

Date: May 9, 2013

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Trial Date: June 10, 2013

Action Filed: December 17, 2010

Plaintiffs hereby submit the following responses to defendant TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, with reference to plaintiffs’ supporting
evidence disputing such statements.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND

ALLEGED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE/EVIDENCE

1. Plaintiffs filed the instant matter on 1. Undisputed.
December 17, 2010, against a host of

defendants, alleging that Plaintiff was

diagnosed with colon cancer allegedly

attributable to asbestos exposure through

his work at various job sites between 1956

and 1993.

KSinjuredh 49349) oss TEMPLA sep 1 AJB
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, ING.S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Supporting Evidence: Declaration of
Lindsay Weiss (“Weiss Decl”) € 2,
Exhibit A.

2. Plaintiffs initially alleged liability for
Plaintiff's alleged asbestosis diagnosis,
however, this claim was subsequently
dismissed by Plaintiffs on November 1,
2011 based upon TPC’s pending motion to
dismiss as in violation of the single action
rule.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl., {| 3,
Exhibit B.

3. As against TPC, Plaintiffs initially
alleged causes of action for negligence,
strict liability, and premises
owner/contractor liability, however,
Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed the strict
liability cause of action as to TPC.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibits A, C.

4. Accordingly, the only remaining causes
of action agains! TPC are both predicated.
upon a negligence theory.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibits A, C.

5. Plaintiffs do not allege that TPC
manufactured, supplied or distributed
products.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.
Exhibits A. D-H.

6. Plaintiffs do not seek punitive damages
against TPC.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Dect.
Exhibits A.C.

7. Plaintiffs allege that Robert Ross worked
in the presence of TPC employees at the
Tidewater Oil Refinery in Avon, CA for
approximately one month between 1961

and 1962, and at the Phillips Petroleum
Refinery in Avon, CA for approximately
one month in the 1970s.

dif

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

2. Undisputed.

3. Undisputed.

4. Undisputed.

5. Undisputed.

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

6. Undisputed.

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f} in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

7. Undisputed.
Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply

with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers,

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Deci.,
Exhibits D-1.

8. At his deposition, Plaintiff identified
TPC employees as general maintenance
contractors who performed maintenance
and clean-up work.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit [, pp. 418:8-14.

9. In their responses to TPC’s special
interrogatories, Plaintiffs allege that TPC
performed clean-up work and disturbed
msulation at both the Tidewater Oil and
Phillips Petroleum refineries.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit D.

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

3

8. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

In addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiff, ROBERT ROSS, also testified to
TPC employees tearing off white and gray
insulation, including half rounds and block
insulation in his presence.

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
No, 274099 Deposition Testimony of
Robert Ross (“Ross Depo.”) attached to the
Declaration of Ashley J. Benson (“Benson
be as Exhibit 1 at 418:8-14 and 427: 2-

9, Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

in addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiffs also stated “Plaintiff testified in
e immediate matter that he worked near
aborers, were employed by TEMPORARY
LANT who were stripping existing
asbestos-containing pipe insulation,
sweeping up the site and carrying products
to the workers. This work was extremely
usty, getting dust and debris in to
plaintiff’s direct proximity. Due to this
work performed by defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT, plaintiff was
exposed to and necessarily inhaled
respirable asbestos fibers attributable to
efendant TEMPORARY PLANT.” and
Plaintiff testified in the immediate matter
that he worked near laborers, were
employed by TEMPORARY PLANT,
stripping burnt asbestos-containing
insulation from piping and the coker. This
work was extremely dusty, getting dust and
debris in to plaintiff's direct proximity.
Due to this work performed by defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT, plaintiff was
exposed to and necessarily inhaled
respirable asbestos fibers attributable to
defendant TEMPORARY PLANT. “
[Weiss Decl., Exhibit D at 2:13-16 and
2:22-25,]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

10. In support of these claims, Plaintiffs
identify a litany of non-specific documents,
none of which bear any relation to Plaintiff,
Tidewater, Phillips Petroleum, or, most
importantly, TPC’s work at these sites.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Deci.,
Exhibits D-E.

11. The only witness identified as a person
with knowledge as to Plaintiff’s work
around TPC is the Plaintiff himself.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit D.

12. TPC propounded special interrogatories
and requests for production of documents
specifically seeking information regarding
Plaintiffs’ allegation that TPC owed
Plaintiff a duty.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibits G-H.

13. In response to TPC’s discovery,
Plaintiffs provided boilerplate responses
which merely resuscitated the general
allegations made against TPC.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibits G-H.

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

4

10. Disputed to the extent that defendant
argumentatively characterizes plaintiffs’
responses as “a litany of non-specific
documents.” Rather they are documents
specific to TPC, including their work with
asbestos containing products and
knowledge of the hazards of asbestos, both
of which are relevant to plaintiffs’ claims.
[Weiss Decl., Exhibit D at 5:14-6:10.]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal, Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

1. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Plaintiff's
knowledge is sufficient to establish liability
for exposures from TPC employees
negligent actions,

Additionally, in plaintiff, ROBERT ROSS’s
eposition, Mr. ROSS identified coworker
Ron Powers stating he may have additional
knowledge as to plaintiff's work around
TPC. [SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR
COURT 275731 Ross Depo., attached to
the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2 at 1142:11-
8]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f} in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

2. Undisputed.

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f in
at it fails to cite page and line numbers.

3. Disputed to the extent that defendant
argumentatively characterizes plaintiffs’
responses as “boilerplate." Plaintiffs
provided factually full and specific
responses. For example plaintiffs stated
that at Tidewater and Phillips Petroleum:
“Plaintiff testified in the immediate matter
at he worked near laborers, were
employed by TEMPORARY PLANT who
were stripping existing asbestos-containing
pipe insulation, sweeping up the site and
carrying products to the workers. This

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

5

work was extremely dusty, getting dust and
ebris in to plaintiff's direct proximity.
Due to this work performed by defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT, plaintiff was
exposed to and necessarily inhaled
respirable asbestos fibers attributable to
efendant TEMPORARY PLANT.” and
“Plaintiff testified in the immediate matter
at he worked near laborers, were
employed by TEMPORARY PLANT,
stripping burnt asbestos-containing
insulation from piping and the coker. This
work was extremely dusty, getting dust and
ebris in. to plaintiff's direct proximity. Due
to this work performed by defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT, plaintiff was
exposed to and necessarily inhaled
respirable asbestos fibers attributable to
defendant TEMPORARY PLANT.”
[Weiss Decl., Exhibit D at 2:13-16 and
2:22-25.]

Plaintiffs also stated “Defendant failed to
exercise due/ordinary care in order to avoid
injuring plaintiff while plaintiff worked
near defendant’s employees at facilities
listed below. Defendant did not isolate
work involving asbestos and asbestos-
containing products. Defendant did not
maintain the premises so as to prevent
exposure to asbestos, a hazardous
substance. Defendant did not control,
reduce or eliminate dust or provide
adequate ventilation. Defendant did not
rovide plaintiff with respiratory safety
equipment or cducate plaintiff regarding the
use of respiratory safety equipment.
Further, defendant controlled the work site
by coordinating, managing and overseeing
the handling of asbestos and asbestos-
containing products to which plaintiff was
exposed. Defendant contracted for the
handling of asbestos-containing materials,
which caused asbestos-containing products
to be present on the below-listed premises.
Plaintiff consequently developed an
asbestos-related injury. Thus, as a
proximate result of defendant's breach of
due/ordinary care, plaintiff sustained
injury.” [Weiss Decl., Exhibit G at 2:9-15.]

Additionally, plaintiffs outline what
defendant should have known based on
information widely available to it at the
time, including information and guidelines

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

14. For example, in response to TPC’s
interrogatories asking for all facts
supporting Plaintiffs’ contention that TPC
had responsibility over Plaintiff's safety at
each refinery, Plaintiffs merely stated that
Plaintiff “worked in close proximity to
trades employed by TPC who handled and
disturbed asbestos-containing products.”
Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G.

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

spelled out in the California Industry Safety
Orders. This knowledge shows that
defendant should have used reasonable care
in dealing with potentially hazardous
materials, including asbestos.

peeiss Decl., Exhibit D at 8:2-3 and 4:1-

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f} in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

14. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

In addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiffs also stated “Defendant failed to
exercise due/ordinary care in order to avoid
injuring plaintiff while plaintiff worked near
defendant’s employees at facilities listed
below. Defendant did not isolate work
involving asbestos and asbestos-containing
products. Defendant did not maintain the
premises so as to prevent exposure to
asbestos, a hazardous substance. Defendant
did not control, reduce or eliminate dust or
provide adequate ventilation. Defendant
did not provide plaintiff with respiratory
safety equipment or cducate plaintiff
regarding the use of respiratory safety
equipment. Further, defendant controlled
the work site by coordinating, managing
and overseeing the handling of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products to which
plaintiff was exposed. Defendant
contracted for the handling of asbestos-
containing materials, which caused
asbestos-containing products to be present
on the below-listed premises. Plaintiff
consequently developed an asbestos-related
injury. Thus, as a proximate result of
defendant's breach of due/ordinary care,
plaintiff sustained injury.” [Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G at 2:9-15.

Additionally, plaintiffs outline what
defendant should have known based on
information widely available to it at the
time, including information and guidelines
spelled out in the California Industry Safety
Orders. This knowledge shows that
defendant should have used reasonable care
in dealing with potentially hazardous

6 AJB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

15, Plaintiffs’ responses then reference
documents regarding asbestos and
insulation, which have no bearing to the
interrogatories whatsoever.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibits G-H.

16. Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ responses is
there any reference to whether TPC had
responsibility over Plaintiff's safety at
either refinery.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibits G-H.

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

7

[Weiss Decl., Exhibit D at 8:2-3 and 4:1-
26.]

Finally, Piaintifis are not contending that
TPC had the duty to ensure that the
workplace in question was free from all
types of hazards. Rather, TPC was
responsible for ensuring that it did not
contribute any workplace hazards.
Specifically, TPC had a duty to refrain from
contaminating the workplace with airborne
asbestos fibers.

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

15, Disputed to the extent that defendant
argumentatively characterizes plaintiffs’
responses as having “no bearing to the
interrogatories whatsoever." Rather many
of these documents are specific to TPC,
including their work with asbestos-
containing products and the knowledge of
the hazards of asbestos, both of which are
televant to plaintiffs’ claims. The
remaining documents establish the asbestos
content of insulation removed and disturbed
by TPC in proximity to plaintiff.

[Weiss Decl., Exhibit G at 2:7-9:22; Exhibit
H at 2:7-6:25.]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(£) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

16. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

In addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiffs also stated “Defendant failed to
exercise due/ordinary care in order to avoid
injuring plaintiff while plaintiff worked near
defendant’s employees at facilities listed
elow. Defendant did not isolate work
involving asbestos and asbestos-containing
roducts. Defendant did not maintain the
premises so as to prevent exposure to
asbestos, a hazardous substance. Defendant
did not control, reduce or eliminate dust or
provide adequate ventilation. Defendant
did not provide plaintiff with respiratory
safety equipment or educate plaintiff

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

17. As for the interrogatories requesting all
facts supporting Plaintiffs’ contention that
TPC owed Plaintiff a duty, Plaintiffs
provide the identical response as above, all
of which lacked any reference as to how or
why TPC owed Plaintiff a duty.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G.

dif

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

8

regarding the use of respiratory safety
equipment. Further, defendant controlled
the work site by coordinating, managing
and overseeing the handling of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products to which
plaintiff was exposed. Defendant
contracted for the handling of asbestos-
containing materials, which caused
asbestos-containing products to be present
on the below-listed premises. Plaintiff
consequently developed an asbestos-related
injury. Thus, as a proximate result of
defendant's breach of due/ordinary care,
plaintiff sustained injury.“ [Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G at 2:9-15.]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(£) in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

17. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

In addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiffs also stated “Defendant failed to
exercise duc/ordinary care in order to avoid
injuring plaintiff while plaintiff worked near
defendant’s employees at facilities listed
below. Defendant did not isolate work
involving asbestos and asbestos-containing
products. Defendant did not maintain the
premises so as to prevent exposure to
asbestos, a hazardous substance. Defendant
did not control, reduce or eliminate dust or
provide adequate ventilation. Defendant
did not provide plaintiff with respiratory
safety equipment or educate plaintiff
tegarding the use of respiratory safety
equipment. Further, defendant controlled
the work site by coordinating, managing
and overseeing the handling of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products to which
plaintiff was exposed. Defendant
contracted for the handling of asbestos-
containing materials, which caused
asbestos-containing products to be present
on the below-listed premises. Plaintiff
consequently developed an asbestos-related
injury. Thus, as a proximate result of
defendant's breach of due/ordinary care,
plaintiff sustained injury.“ [Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G at 2:9-15.]

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

18. TPC’s Special Interrogatory stated as
follows: “Please state all facts supporting
YOUR contention that between. the years
1961 and 1962, TPC owed YOU a “duty”
as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.” TPC
asked an additional Interrogatory pertaining
to the 1970s. Plaintiffs responded to each
interrogatory as follows: “... Robert Ross
was exposed to asbestos by working in.
close proximity to trades employed by
[TPC] that were handling and disturbing
asbestos-containing products.” Plaintiffs
then list factual allegations about Plaintiffs
inhalation of dust and allegations as to what
TPC did at the premises. Plaintiffs
reference documents regarding asbestos and
insulation, and. copy the table with
Plaintiff's employer, location of job site,
job title, exposure dates, and co-workers.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G.

19. At Tidewater Oil, Plaintiff testified that
Plant Maintenance workers performed
clean-up work and that he recalled them
stripping insulation.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit I, pp. 418:8-14.

20. When asked, Plaintiff admitted that he
did not know the brand name or
manufacturer of the alleged insulation, nor
did he know the year the insulation was

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

9

Defendant’s citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f} in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

18. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

In addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiffs also stated “Defendant failed to
exercise due/ordinary care in order to avoid
injuring plaintiff while plaintiff worked near
defendant’s employees at facilities listed
below. Defendant did not isolate work.
involving asbestos and asbestos-containing
products. Defendant did not maintain the
premises so as to prevent exposure to
asbestos, a hazardous substance. Defendant
did not control, reduce or eliminate dust or
provide adequate ventilation. Defendant
did not provide plaintiff with respiratory
safety equipment or educate plaintiff
regarding the use of respiratory safety
equipment. Further, defendant controlled
the work site by coordinating, managing
and overseeing the handling of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products to which
plaintiff was exposed. Defendant
contracted for the handling of asbestos-
containing materials, which caused
asbestos-containing products to be present
on the below-listed premises. Plaintiff
consequently developed an asbestos-related
injury. Thus, as a proximate result of
defendant's breach of due/ordinary care,
plaintiff sustained injury.“ [Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit G at 2:9-15.]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350() in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

19. Undisputed.

20. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Plaintiff
need not know the brand name or
manufacturer, nor need he know the year it
was installed as plaintiff himself has laid

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

first installed. He did not know how much
insulation the employees removed.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit I, pp. 418:18-22; 425:19-426:8;

3264:22-25.

21. He alleged that the Plant Maintenance
workers worked 15-30 feet away from him.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit I, pp. 426:9-15.

22. At Phillips Petroleum, Plaintiff
testified that he recalled seeing the Plant
Maintenance stripping insulation, however,
he did not know the brand name or
manufacturer of the insulation, nor did he
know who first installed the insulation.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit I, pp. 3172:16-3173:5; 3265:1-5.

23. He estimated to being 15-20 feet away
from the Plant Maintenance workers, but
could not estimate how long he was in their
presence.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.
Exhibit I, pp. 3173:6-9; 3173:13-16.

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

the foundation for being able to say the
insulation was asbestos containing.

Plaintiff further testified he saw TPC
removing the white and gray thermal
insulation in the early 1960s. Mr. ROSS
was not asked if the insulation removed by
TPC employees at Tidewater was asbestos
containing, however at Phillips Petroleum
Mr, ROSS testified that this insulation was
asbestos-containing.

[SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
274099 Deposition of Robert Ross, attached
as Exhibit ] to the Benson Decl. at 3172:16-
3173:2; SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR
COURT 275731; Deposition of Robert
Ross, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Benson
Decl. at 417:6-418:1 and 2128:15-2129:22.]

21. Undisputed.

22. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Plaintiff
need not know the brand name or
manufacturer. nor need he know the year it
was installed as plaintiff testified he saw
TPC removing the white and gray thermal
insulation in the early to mid 1970s, as

laintiff himself has laid the foundation for

eing able to say the insulation was asbestos
containing.

Plaintiff further testified he saw TPC
removing the white and gray thermal
insulation in the early 1960s. Mr. ROSS
testified that the insulation removed by TPC
was asbestos-containing.

[SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
274099 Deposition of Robert Ross, attached
as Exhibit | to the Benson Deel. at 3172:16-
3173:2; SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR
COURT 275731; Deposition of Robert
Ross, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Benson
Decl. at 417:6-418:1 and 2128:15-2129:22.]

23. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Plaintiff
need not know the exact distance he was
from an exposure event, nor need he know
how long TPC exposed him. He need only
articulate an exposure occurred.

AIB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTSCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

24. While he generally testified that the
Plant Maintenance workers were working
on a “coker”, he could not identify where in
the refinery the coker was located.

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl.,
Exhibit I, pp. 3256:23-3257:20.

25. In Plaintiffs’ responses to TPC’s “all
facts” discovery, Plaintiffs merely

eneralize Plaintiff's prior testimony that

¢ saw TPC’s employees working at the
Tidewater and Phillips Petroleum
refineries, but does not supplement this
testimony with anything outside of general
allegations concerning any admissible,
tangible evidence that TPC even worked
with asbestos-containing products in the
Plaintiffs presence,

Supporting Evidence: Weiss Decl,
Exhibits D-F.

Dated: 4/25/13

Keinjured b340iplss TEMPLA spd

24. Undisputed, but irrelevant. Plaintiff
need not know exactly where in the plant
the coker was located, it is enough that
plaintiff gave a clear recitation of seeing
TPC employees disturbing asbestos
containing materials in his presence.

25. Disputed as misleading and an
incomplete recitation of facts.

In addition to that stated by defendant
plaintiffs also stated “Plaintiff testified in
the immediate matter that he worked near
laborers, were employed by TEMPORARY
PLANT who were stripping existing
asbestos-containing pipe insulation,
sweeping up the site and carrying products
to the workers. This work was extremely
dusty, getting dust and debris in to
plaintiff's direct proximity. Due to this
work performed by defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT, plaintiff was
exposed to and necessarily inhaled
respirable asbestos fibers attributable to
defendant TEMPORARY PLANT.” and
“Plaintiff testified in the immediate matter
that he worked near laborers, were
employed by TEMPORARY PLANT,
stripping burnt asbestos-containing
insulation from piping and the coker. This
work was extremely dusty, getting dust and
debris in to plaintiff's direct proximity. Due
to this work performed by defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT, plaintiff was
exposed to and necessarily inhaled
respirable asbestos fibers attributable to
defendant TEMPORARY PLANT.”
[Weiss Decl., Exhibit D at 2:13-16 and
2:22-25,]

Defendant's citation to the evidence it
alleges supports this "fact" fails to comply
with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(8 in
that it fails to cite page and line numbers.

BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ Ashley J. Benson

Ashley J, Benson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ii AJB

PLAIN TIFFS! RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
PACTS