Exhibit,Appendix: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BENNETT, SAMUELSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD
ABROFESSIONAL CORP,
(301 MARINA VILLAGE

JOHN G. COWPERTHWAITE, CSB# 96375
BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD

A Professional Corporation ELECTRONICALLY

Attorneys at Law FILED

1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 300 Superior Court of California,

Alameda, Sa na ooo 084 County of San Francisco
elephone: -

Facsimile: {B40} 444-5849 MAR 22 2013

Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK

Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, NO. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs,
EXHIBIT E
vs. .
Date: May 14, 2013
C.C. MOORE & CO., ENGINEERS, et al., Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 503
Defendants.

/ Trial Date: June 10, 2013OD MW BR wD

27

BENNETT, SAMUBLSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD.

A PROFESSIONAL CORP,
HOT MARINA VILLAGE by
‘SUITE 300
ALAMEDA, CA 94502-1084
(S10) 444-7688,

JOHN G. COWPERTHWAITE, ESQ., CBN: 96375
jcowperthwaite@bsralaw.com

BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD
A Professional Corporation

Attorneys at Law
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 300
Alameda, CA 94501-1084
Telephone: (510) 444-7688
Facsimile: (510) 444-5849
Attorneys for Defendant
SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731

Plaintiffs,
vs.

SPECIALLY PREPARED

C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS, et.al. INTERROGATORIES

Defendants.

/

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, {NC.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS
SET NUMBER: ONE
Pursuant to section 2030.010 et seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
defendant requests that you answer under oath the following interrogatories within thirty (20)
days. These interrogatories are directed to you, your attorneys, and anyone within your or
your attorneys’ employ who may have knowledge regarding the answers to these
interrogatories.
You are directed to answer each and every interrogatory to the best of your ability. If you
cannot answer an interrogatory, or any portion thereof, explain why you are unabie to do so.
The terms “exposure”, "asbestos-containing product", and "location of each job site”

have the same meaning as they have in defendant's standard interrogatories to plaintiff.

-i-

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES27

BENNETT, SAMUELSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD
‘A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
FSG MARINA VILLAGE B,
SUITE 360
ALAMEDA, CA 94501-1086:
(S10) 48.7688

INTERROGATORY NUMBER ONE: Please identify each individual who prepared

or assisted in the preparation of or provided information for the preparation of plaintiffs

response to these interrogatories.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWO: Do you contend that plaintiff was exposed to
any asbestos-containing products for which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly
liable?

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THREE: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please identify each and every asbestos-containing product (by name,
serial number, function, color, shape, dimensions, generic description, or any other identifying
description) to which you claim plaintiff was exposed and for which defendant SLAKEY
BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FOUR: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please list all of the facts upon which you base your contention that
plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing product for which defendant SLAKEY
BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FIVE: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please list each and every job site at which you claim plaintiff was
exposed fo an asbestos-containing product for which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.
is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER SIX: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, for each job site identified in response to the preceding interrogatory,
please specify the date of each exposure at the given locations.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER SEVEN: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please describe the manner in which you

were exposed to any asbestos-containing products for which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS,
INC. is allegedly liable..

Hil

-2-
way

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIESENNETT, SAMUELSEN,

27

EYNOLDS & ALLARD

PROFESSIONAL CORP.
301 MARINA VIELACE P,

SUITE 300
LAMBDA, CA 94501-1084

(S10) #45. 7688

INTERROGATORY NUMBER EIGHT: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please identify with sufficient particularity for defendant to request
production of any and all documents and other tangible things that evidence your contention
that plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing products for which defendant SLAKEY
BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER NINE: /[f your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please identify all witnesses, including co-workers and family members
{including addresses and telephone numbers), who have knowledge concerning plaintiff's
alleged exposure to any asbestos-containing products for which defendant SLAKEY
BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TEN: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please identify all persons, including co-workers and family members
(including addresses and telephone numbers), who have knowledge concerning the dates at
which you allege that plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing products for which
defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER ELEVEN: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please identify with sufficient particularity for defendant to request
production of any and all documents and other tangible things that you contend evidence those
job sites at which you allege plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing products for
which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWELVE: If your answer to interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please identify all communications supporting your contention that
plaintiff was exposed to any asbestos-containing products for which defendant SLAKEY
BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liabie.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTEEN: !f your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please list plaintiffs employers and the date of each exposure to any

asbestos-containing products for which you allege defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is

-3-

heway

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES27

JRNNETT, SAMUELSEN,
3BYNOLDS & ALLARD

4 PROFESSIONAS. CORP.
30H MARINA VILLAGE P.
‘SUITE 30%
ALAMEDA, Ca 94501-1084]
(G10) 484-7688

liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FOURTEEN: If your answer to Interrogatory Two was

in the affirmative, please identify each and every person who contracted with plaintiffs
employer for plaintiff's work at the job site.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FIFTEEN: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two

was in the affirmative, please describe any label, writing, or identifying markings on or affixed
fo each asbestos-containing product for which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is
allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER SIXTEEN: If your answer to Interrogatory Number Two
was in the affirmative, please describe the container or wrapping of each asbestos-containing
product for which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is allegedly liable including, but not
limited to, its type, color, label, texture and any writing or identifying markings on or affixed to
it.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER SEVENTEEN: If your answer to Intferrogatory Number

Two was in the affirmative, please identify all persons who used, installed, removed or
disturbed any asbestos-containing products for which defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.
is allegedly liable.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER EIGHTEEN: Do you contend that defendant SLAKEY
BROTHERS, INC. is tlable to plaintiff for punitive damages?

INTERROGATORY NUMBER NINETEEN: ff your answer to Interrogatory Number
Seventeen was in the affirmative, please list all of the facts upon which you base your
contention that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is liable to plaintiff for punitive damages.

' INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY: [f your answer to Interrogatory Number

Eighteen was in the affirmative, please identify with sufficient particularity for defendant to
request production of any and all documents and other tangible things that evidence your
contention that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is liable to plaintiff for punitive damages.
Ui

4.
RKWAY

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES27

BENNETT, SAMUELSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD
A PROFESSIONAL CORP,
130) MARINA VILLAGE P.
DE 300
ALAMEDA, CA 9a501-1006
B10} se7688

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-ONE: If your answer to Interrogatory Number

Eighteen was in the affirmative, please identify all witnesses, including co-workers and family
members (including addresses and telephone numbers), who have knowledge concerning your
claim. that defendant is liable to plaintiff for punitive damages.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-TWO: If your answer to Interrogatory Number

Eighteen was in the affirmative, please identify all persons, Including supervisors, co-workers
and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers), who have knowledge
concerning your claim that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. Is liable to plaintiff for
punitive damages.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-THREE: If your answer to Interrogatory

Number Eighteen was in the affirmative, please identify all communications concerning your
claim that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. is liable to plaintiff for punitive damages.
INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-FOUR: State all facts which support your

contention that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. acted negligently with respect to
plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-FIVE: Please identify with sufficient

particularity for defendant to request production of any and all documents and other tangible
things that evidence your contention that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. acted
negligently with respect to plaintiff.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-SIX: Please identify all persons, including

supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers),
who have knowledge concerning your contention that defendant acted negligently with respect
to plaintiff.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-SEVEN: if your answer to Interrogatory

Number Twenty-Four was in the affirmative, please identify all witnesses, including co-workers
and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers), who have knowledge
concerning your contention that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. acted negligently with

-5-
kKWay

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES27

BENNETT, SAMUELSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARE,

A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
130) MARINA VILLAGE ®,

‘SUITE 306,
ALAMEDA, CA 94501-1084]
(S10) 444.7688

respect to plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-EIGHT: Please identify all communications
concerning your contention that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. acted negligently with

respect to plaintiff. oe _. .
INTERROGATORY NUMBER TWENTY-NINE: Please state all facts supporting the

allegation of your complaint that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. researched, studied,
manufactured, fabricated, designed, labeled, assembied, distributed, bought, offered for sale,
sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, asbestos

and other asbestos-containing products.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY: Please identify all persons, including
supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers)
who have knowledge concerning or supporting your response to Interrogatory Number Twenty~
Nine.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-ONE: Piease identify with sufficient particularity

for defendant to request production of any and all documents and other tangible things that

evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Twenty-Nine.
INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-TWO: Please state all facts supporting the

allegation in your complaint that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. constitutes a

substantial share of the asbestos or asbestos-containing products market which caused
plaintiff's injuries.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-THREE: Please identify all persons, including

supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers),
who have knowledge or information supporting your response to Interrogatory Number Thirty-
Two. ,

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-FOUR: Please identify with sufficient

particularity for defendant to request production of any and all documents and other tangible

things that evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Thirty-Two.

~6-
KWAY

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES27

BENNETT, SAMUELSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD.
A PROFBSSIONAL CORP,
\30) MARINA VILLAGE Pal

SUITE 300
ALAMEDA, CA 94593-1086
(510) 246-7688

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-FIVE: Please identify all communications which

evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Thirly-Two.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-SIX: Please state all facts supporting the

allegation of your complaint that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. impliedly warranted |.

its alleged asbestos and asbestos-containing products to be safe for its intended use.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-SEVEN: Please identify all persons, including

supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers)
who have knowledge or information supporting your response to Interrogatory Number Thirty-
Six. :

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-EIGHT: Please identify with sufficient

particularity for defendant to request production of any and all documents and other tangible
things that evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Thirty-Six.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER THIRTY-NINE: Please identify all communications which

evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Thirty-Six.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY: Please state all facts supporting the allegation

in your complaint that representations by defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. were false
and untrue and that defendant knew at the time that they were untrue.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-ONE: Please identify all persons, including

supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers)
who have knowledge or information supporting your response to Interrogatory Number Forty.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-TWO: Please identify with sufficient particularity

for defendant to request production of any and all documents and other tangible things that
evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Forty.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-THREE: Please identify all communications

which evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Forty.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-FOUR: Please state all facts supporting the

allegation in your complaint that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. suppressed information

-7*
KWAY

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIESBR wWoN

a7

BENNETT, SAMUELSER,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD
4 PROFESSIONAL CORP.
1301 MARINA WULLAGE B,

SUITE 300
ALAMEDA, CA 94301-1084)
1510446. 7688

relating to the danger of use of asbestos-containing products.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-FIVE: Please identify all persons, including

supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers)
who have knowledge or information supporting. your response to Interrogatory Number Forty--
Four.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-SIX: Please identify with sufficient particutarity

for a request to produce any and all documents and other tangible things that evidence or
support your response to Interrogatory Number Forty-Four.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-SEVEN: Please identify all communications

which evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Forty-Four.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-EIGHT: Please state all facts supporting the

allegation in your complaint that defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC. failed to provide
plaintiff with information concerning adequate protective masks and other equipment devised
to be used when applying or working around asbestos-containing products.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FORTY-NINE: Please identify all persons, including

supervisors, co-workers and family members (including addresses and telephone numbers)
who have knowledge or information supporting your response to Interrogatory Number Forty-
Eight.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FIFTY: Please identify with sufficient particularity for

defendant to request production of any and all documents and other tangible things that
evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Forty-Eight.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FIFTY-ONE: Please identify all communications which

evidence or support your response to Interrogatory Number Forty-Eight.

INTERROGATORY NUMBER FIFTY-TWO: If you have received any settlements from

any party to this action, please list all parties who have settled and the tolal amount of
settlements.

it

Be
AWAY

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES27

BENNETT, SAMUELSEN,
REYNOLDS & ALLARD

A. PROFESSIONAL CORP.
1301 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY

SUITE
ALAMEBA. CA 94501 asa

iINTERROGATORY NUMBER FIFTY-THREE: if you have dismissed any party

defendant in exchange for a waiver of litigation costs, please list each such dismissed
defendant.
|. DATED: October 26. 2011 _. BENNETT, UELSEN, REYNOLDS & ALLARD

i

By /s/_ JOHN G. COWPERTHWAITE
John G. Cowperthwaite
Attorneys for Defendant
SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.

~9-

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIESoo ON OD oO FF WY =

a

PROOF OF SERVICE

Case Name: Robert and Jean Ross v. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
Court: San Francisco Superior Court
Case No.: CGC-10-275731

1am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years and not a party to
the cause herein. | am an employee of BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, REYNOLDS &
ALLARD, A Professional Corporation, 1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 300,
Alameda, California 94501-1084. | am readily familiar with the standard business
practices of this office in connection with the mailing, delivering (via messenger and
overnight), facsimiling and e-file/serve via LexisNexis of documents from this office.

On October 26, 2011, | served the following listed documents(s), by method
indicated below, on the parties in this action:

DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED
BY DEFENDANT SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC., TO PLAINTIFF; SPECIALLY
PREPARED INTERROGATORIES; FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(v) ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed
above to LexisNexis File and Serve, an electronic filing service provider, at

www. fileandserve.lexisnexis.com pursuant fo the Court's Order mandating electronic
service. The transmission was reported as complete and without error.

| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October
26, 2011, in Alameda, California.

/s/ Shirley A. Haynes-Williams
SHIRLEY A. HAYNES-WILLIAMSBRAYTON@PURCELL LLY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

POBOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6199

(415) 898-1585

Oo wm WH Hw PB WN

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.8. # 73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 5.B# 154436
ELISABETH A. LEONARD, ESQ., S.B. #273128
BRAYTON#PURCELL LLP

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT SLAKEY BROTHERS,
INC.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS
vs. }
)

C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS;
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1

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

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS
SET NO: ONE (1)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Other than plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff currently
identifies himself, c/o Brayton¢Purcell LLP, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato, California
48.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term “exposed.” Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Yes.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant..

KNlnfured\}9549\pldogssp-SLAREY.wpd I aabeo we ND WR WD Ye

10

e

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks formation protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term "exposed." Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiffresponds as follows: Plaintiff worked in
close proximity to transite pipe supplied by SLAKEY.

Pursuant fo C.C.P. R 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquizy to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

2
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintiif objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term “exposed.” Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

At the below sites, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products what were
sold, supplied and/or distributed by SL. YY BROTHERS, INC. (hereinafter, “SLAKEY”).
Defendant knew that asbestos-containing products such as those supplied to plaintiff would be
handled, disturbed, and manipulated by plaintiff, resulting in the release of airbome asbestos
fibers. Defendant had a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in said products, a duty to
appropriately label such products, as well as other duties all of which were breached by
defendant. As a proximate result of defendant’s breach of its duties, plaintiff sustained injury.
Plaintiff cannot currently be more specific as to precise date(s) on which plaintiff was at the
following locations. Plaintiff cannot currently be more specific as to the precise packaging of or
labeling on defendants products which plaintiff was exposed to at the following locations and
under the following circumstances:

Location of Exposure
Ennployer Exposure Job Title Dates
Western Asbestos Tidewater Oil Company Insulator 1961-1962
3150 3* Street Avon, CA (Approx 1 month)

San Francisco, CA

Plaintiff recalls insulating pipes, a tank and vessels. Plaintiff testified that he observed
SLAKEY making deliveries to jobsites during his career as an insulator. (TVD of ROBERT
ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg 148-149), Plaintiff saw SLAKEY deliver asbestos-containing transite
pipe, asbestos-containing block insulation, and asbestos-containing pipe covering qivD of

BERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg 151). Plaintiff saw the transite piping put onto pallets when
being unloaded from the SLAKEY marked truck (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg 152).
Plaintiff saw that same transite piping laid into a trench. (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011,
pg 153). Plaintiff observed that SLAKEY delivered transite piping being cut with a power saw,
within 2-4 feet of Ross, which created lots of dust. (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg
153-154). Therefore, due to this work plaintiff necessarily inhaled and was exposed to asbestos
attributablé to defendant SLAKEY. Plaintiff recalls the following co-workers: Ronald A.
Powers (c/o Brayton¢Purcell LLP), Lou Hanson (address unknown); Robert Robbins
(deceased); Robert Sandoval (deceased).

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation Alameda County Insulator 1967-1972;
Administration Building, 1977-1979
Oak Street, (2 weeks)
Oakland, CA

‘KAinjured\ 9349 \plé\tog-rsp-SLAKEY pd 2 aaboO Oe YN DR HW BR WN

yoNR NN NN Re
BSRRRR EEE SeEUR DAE GEE S

Plaintiff applied pipecovering and duct wrap. Plaintiff testified that he observed SLAKEY
making deliveries to jobsites during his career as an insulator. (TVD of ROBERT ROSS,
7/12/2011, pe 148-149). Plaintiff testified that SLAKEY delivered transite piping to the &
Alameda County Court House, in Oakland, via flatbed trick marked with SLAKEY name on its
doors (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 157-158). Plaintiff saw that transite piping
moved to a trench from the SLAKEY truck (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 159). The
transite SLAKEY supplied was the only transite pipe brought to this site (TVD of ROBERT
ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 159). Plaintiff saw the SLAKEY supplied transite cut.with a power saw ,
for approx. 30 seconds, before he left the area (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 160).
This cutting created dust, getting in to plaintiff's direct proximity. Plaintiffrecalls the following
supervisor: Dick Saiya (Belmont, California). Therefore, due to this work plaintiff necessarily
inhaled and was exposed to asbestos attributable to defendant SLAKEY. Plaintiff recalls the
following co-worker: Robert Cantley, (c/o Brayton%-Purcell LLP).

Plaintiff submits the following information as evidence that the plaintiff was exposed t
harmful, asbestos-containing products and surroundings: in their General Order 129 Responses,
defendant SLAKEY, admits that between the period of 1930 to 1985, they supplied asbestos-
cement pipe to their customers, as well as other various asbestos-containing products. Further,
in the deposition transcripts of defendant SLAKEY’s Person Most Knowledgeable Robert
Slakey dated May 22, 2003, Mr. Slakey admits that at SLAKEY locations, defendant carried and
supplied asbestos-containing products such as asbestos-cement pipe (19:18-19:21) and asbestos-
containing pipe covering (20:4-20:16) manufactured by producers like Owens-Coming
Fibergias (20:17-20:20). .

Effective in December of 1936 and revised in 1939 and 1945, the Division of Industrial
Safety of the State of California issued “Dust, Fumes, Vapors and Gases Safety Orders.”
Asbestos dust was listed as one of the hazardous mineral dusts. The pamphlet summarizes the
safety provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act. Order 1901(a)
stated that the orders applied “to every place of employment where a work or process is carried
on by which dusts, furnes, vapors or gases of a harmful nature are produced or generated, or
exist independently of the work or process, which may be inhaled in quantities or concentrations
that constitute harmful exposure as hereinafter defined or be in any other manner injurious to
health.” Order 1906(a) stated that when removal through exhaust systems as required by Order
1905 was impracticable, employees should be protected by approved respiratory or other
protective equipment. The approved equipment included in Order 1906(b) was “filter-type
respirators, hose masks, positive pressure air helmets, canister-type gas masks and self-
contained oxygen breathing apparatus.” The Industrial Accident Commission standards were at
least equivalent to those of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. It was the duty of the employer to
provide such equipment. (Order 1906(e).) Order 1908(a) required the use of water, oil or
chemicals to suppress and allay harmful dust. Order 1910(b) stated that “Employees engaged in
cleaning operations and all others who may be exposed shall wear approved respiratory
equipment unless such cleaning is done by means of suction apparatus capable of preventing
harmful exposure.” Order 1910(c) stated that “Employers shall provide a change room, shower
baths, and lavatories, having hot and cold running water, in every place of employment where
the lack of such facilities would constitute a health hazard.

Defendant, as a supplier and distributor of asbestos-containing products, owed a duty to
exercise due care to foreseeable users of products sold, supplied and/or distributed by defendant.
Further, defendant failed to warn plaintiff as a consumer of the dangers inherent in these
products. Defendant also breached its duties by supplying and distributing products which were
defective in that they caused asbestos-containing fibers to be released into the ambient air when
said products were used in a foreseeable manner by foreseeable users. The defect existed in the
defendant's products at the time they left the possession of defendants. Further, defendant failed
to adequately warn of the risks to which plaintiff and other similarly-situated users, consumers
and bystanders were exposed and failed to appropriately label such products of the dangers
inherent in said products. Defendant’s conduct was willful, malicious, and done with a wanton
disregard for plaintiff's safety and the safety of other consumers.

Beginning in 1936 and continuing to the present day, the Califomia Industrial Safety
Orders, which apply to all employers, explicitly Eoted asbestos among the hazardous dusts and

KMnfured\i9349\pldivog-rsp-SLAREY.wpd 3 ashOo wm DW DH A BR WwW YN

10

provided precautions that should be taken to reduce the hazard. For example, in 1945, Order
1908(a) required the use of water, oil or chemicals to suppress and allay harmful dust. Order
1910(b) stated that “Employees engaged in cleaning operations and all others who may be
exposed shall wear approved respiratory equipment unless such cleaning is done by means of
suction apparatus capable of preventing harmful exposure.” Order 1910(c) stated that
“Employers shall provide a change room, shower baths, and lavatories, having hot and cold
running water, in every place of employment where the lack of such facilities would constitute a
health hazard.” To put it clearly, approximately three quarters of a century.ago.employers were
required by law to engage in proper housekeeping and to provide protection for employees when
asbestos dust was generated. “Asbestos dust was a known hazard, with known precautions that
should be employed.

The Revised Safety Orders of 1955 still required exhaust procedures, respiratory
protection, and clean-up, and also still listed asbestos as a hazardous dust. (California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 7, “General Industry Safety Orders.”) Asbestos was listed as a
hazardous dust in the 1968, 1970, and 1972 Revision Records printed in the California Code of
Regulations Register.

Defendant is charged with knowledge of applicable Califormia law, including the
General Industry Safety Orders that were in effect. Therefore, defendant knew or should have
known of the héalth hazards associated with exposure to asbestos as early as the 1930s.

Plaintiff contends that plaintiffs exposure to asbestos as a result of defendant was a
substantial factor is causing and contributing to plaintiff’s total dose as defined in Rutherford v,
Owens-Illinois (1997) 16 Cal 4th, 953. Rutherford states, “In an ashestos-related cancer case,
the plaintiff need not prove that fibers from the defendant's product were the ones, or among the
ones, that actually began the process of malignant cellular growth. Tastead, the plaintiff may
meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendants product was a substantial factor causing
the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor
contributing to the plaintiff's or plaintiff's risk of Geveloping cancer. The jury should be so
instructed.” (d., emphasis added, at 982-983.) Plaintiff's asbestos-related clinical disease
responses were caused by the total proven, ascertainable dose of asbestos of every type and
instance in his history, which given sufficient minimum latency for the fundamental yet
individually susceptible biology to obtain represents for trial a “substantial factor,” as defined in
Rutherford.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term “exposed.” Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Western Asbestos Tidewater Oil Company insulator 1961-1962
3150 3" Street Avon, CA (Approx | month)
San Francisco, CA

Location of Exposure
Emplover Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation Alameda County Insulator 1967-1972;

Administration Building, 1977-1979

Oak Street, Oakland, CA (2 weeks)

KAlnjured\19340\pld\rog-rsp-SLAREY pd

aab0 OOD

10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain
the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and believes that
there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time that is not
equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintitf objects to this Interrogatory.on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term "exposure." Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Wester Asbestos Tidewater Oil Company Tnsulator 1961-1962,
3150 3" Street Avon, CA (Approx 1 month)
San Francisco, CA

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Consolidated Insulation. Alameda County Insulator 1967-1972;

Administration Building, 1977-1979

Oak Street, (2 weeks)

Oakland, CA

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain
the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and believes that
there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time that is not
equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiff-objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
{hat it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use oft the undefined term “exposed.” Subject o and
without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates
Western Asbestos Tidewater Oil Company Insulator 1961-1962
3150 3” Street Avon, CA (Approx 1 month)

San Francisco, CA.

Plaintiff recalls insulating pipes, a tank and vessels. Plaintiff testified that he observed
SLAKEY making deliveries to jobsites during his career as an insulator. (TVD of ROBERT
ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg 148-149). Plaintiff saw SLAKEY deliver asbestos-containing transite
pipe, asbestos-containing block insulation, and asbestos-containing pipe covering of
ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg 151). Plaintiff saw the transite piping put onto B lets when
being unloaded from the SLAKEY marked truck (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg 152).
Plaintiff saw that same transite piping laid into a trench. (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011,
pg 153). Plaintiff observed that SLAKEY delivered transite piping being cut with a power saw,
within 2-4 feet of Ross, which created lots of dust. (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, pg
153-154). Therefore, due to this work plaintiff necessarily inhaled and was exposed to asbestos
attributable to defendant SLAKEY. Plaintiff recalls the following co-workers: Ronald A.

KAlnjuredii 9349\pidvog-15p-SLAKEY.wpd 5 abOo MN DH BR WwW He

wow ew BPN NN NM NY Be RE Be Oe Se oe Se Se Se oe
eo aA hA BF BH SF DoD wm ADH BF WN FY SC

Powers (c/o Brayton*Purcell LLP), Lou Hanson (address unknown); Robert Robbins
(deceased); Robert Sandoval (deceased).

Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure Job Title Dates

Consolidated Insulation Alameda County Insulator 1967-1972;
. ’ Administration Building, 1977-1979
Oak Street, (2 weeks)
Oakland, CA

Plaintiff applied pipecovering and duct wrap. Plaintiff testified that he observed SLAKEY
making deliveries to jobsites during his career as an insulator, (TVD of ROBERT ROSS,

W 1220 1, pg 148-149). Plaintiff testified that SLAKEY delivered transite piping to the
Alameda County Court House, in Oakland, via flatbed truck marked with sl AREY name on its
doors (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 157-158). Plaintiff saw that transite piping
maoved to a trench from the SLAKEY truck (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 159). The
transite SLAKEY supplied was the only transite pipe brought to this site (TVD of ROBERT
ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. £50), Plaintiff saw the SLAKEY supplied transite cut with a power saw ,
for approx. 30 seconds, before he left the area (TVD of ROBERT ROSS, 7/12/2011, p. 160).
‘This cutting created dust, getting in to plaintiff's direct proximity. Plaintiff recalls the following
supervisor: Dick Saiya (Belmont, California). Therefore, due to this work plaintiff necessarily
inhaled and was exposed to asbestos attributable to defendant SLAKEY, Plaintiffrecalls the
following co-worker: Robert Cantley, (c/o Brayton*Purcell LLP).

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Plaintiff objects that this Interrogatory secks
information equally available to, or already in the possession of, defendant and is therefore
harassing, burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term “exposed.” Subject to and
without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows:

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories Set
One and Set Two, and all exhibits attached thereto.

Plaintiff identifies plaintiff's Social Security records, employment records, union records
and medical records and billing which are equally available to defendant through coordinating
defense counsel, Berry & Berry.

Plaintiff identifies the deposition transcripts of plaintiff in the immediate matter, dated
July 12, 2011 and all subsequent dates, all exhibits attached thereto. These transcripts are
reported by and available from Aiken & Welch, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland,
California. Plaintiff believes defendant is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies the General Order 129 Responses of SLAKEY, each available care of
each defendant’s attorney of record. A list of defendant’s attorneys of record is equally
available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland,
California 94610, (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies the General Order 129 Responses of Purves Supply Company, Inc, c/o
each available care of each defendant’s attorney of record. A list of defendant’s attorneys of
record is equally available from coordinating defense counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore
Avenue, Oakland, California 94610, (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies the deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto, of Robert
Slakey as Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Record, of SLAKEY, taken in the
matter of Claire E. Coe, et. al. v. Owens-Coring Fiber Glass, et. al, SESC No. 942967

KAlnjured\19349\pidlvog-rsp-SLAKEY wpd 6 abDo wnt De BR WN

ett
oC em DD A BF BY SF Oo

commencing on August 12, 1992. Copies of the transcripts are equally available from Mary
Hillabrand, Inc., 520 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California 34102,

Plaintiff identifies the deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto, of Robert
Slakey as Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Record, of SLAKEY, taken in the
matter of Betty Wolfe v. Abex Corporation, et.al., SFSC No. 947736 commencing on
November 8, 1993. Copies of the transcripts are equally available from Tooker and Antz,
ane Shorthand Reporters, 350 Sansome Street, # 700, San Francisco, California 94104,

415) 392-1 - .

Plaintiff identifies the deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto, of Robert
Slakey as Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Record, of SLAKEY, taken in the
matter of Benjamin Stearns v. Asbestos Defendants, SFSC No. 990087 commencing on July 12,
1999. Copies of the transcripts are equally available from Al Cala & Associates, 1601 1 Street,
Suite 410, Modesto, California 95353.

Plaintiff identifies the deposition transcripts, and all exhibits attached thereto, of Robert
Slakey as Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Record, of SLAKEY, taken in the
matter of Norman Hopkins and Marlene Hopkins v. Asbestos Defendants, SFSC No. 408556
commencing on Fane 12, 2003. Copies of the transcripts are equally available from Aiken &
Welch, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505, Oakland, California.

Plaintiff identifies the deposition of Person(s) Most Knowledgeable/Custodian of
Records for Garlock Sealing Technologies, each available care of each defendant’s attorney of
record. A list of defendant’s attorneys of record is equally available from coordinating defense
counsel, Berry & Berry, 2930 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 94610, (510) 835-8330.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between SLAKEY
and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating to those jobsites where plaintiff
was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between Avex
Supply Company and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating to those
jobsites where plaintiff was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these
documents.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between Delta Pipe
& Supply and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating to those jobsites
where plaintiff was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between Slakey
Avex, Inc. and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating to those jobsites
where plaintiff was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these documents.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between Slakey
Brothers Chico, Inc. and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating fo those
jobsites where plaintiff was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these
documents.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between Slakey
Brothers Tahoe Valley, Inc. and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating to
those jobsites where plaintiff was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these
documents.

Plaintiff identifies all invoices, receipts, contracts and similar items between Slakey
Delta, Inc. and Johns-Manville including items, but not limited to, relating to those jobsites
where plaintiff was present. Plaintiff contends SLAKEY is in possession of these documents.

Additionally, plaintiff identifies numerous articles and studies relating to the health
hazards associated with exposure to asbestos, which have appeared in medical and scientific
literature since the turn of the 20" century and have also been summarized in various
publications. Plaintiff identifies two-texts that contain summaries and/or bibliographies of
asbestos-related disease. They are:

Mf
Ht

KAinjured\i 9349\pldwog-ssp- SLAKEY upd 7 aab-

10

om RD YH RB WN

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

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

Plaintiff is in possession of these texts and will make them available for defendant’s review.
Due to copyright laws, plaintiff cannot provide copies of these texts to defendant.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant. &

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term "exposed." Subject to and
without warving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff identifies himself, c/o
Brayton¢Purcell, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato, California 94948.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that it seeks information protecied from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and
work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term “exposed.” Subject to and
without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff incorporates by
reference Response to Interrogatory No. 9, above.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Plaintiff objects that this Interrogatory seeks
information equally available to, or already in the possession of, defendant and is therefore
harassing, burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with regard to the use of the undefined term "exposed.” Subject to and
without waiving said objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff incorporates by
reference Response to Interrogatory No. 8, above.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, an
believes that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and
work-product doctrine. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with
respect to the undefined terms, including but not limited to “commmnications” and “exposed.”
Plaintiff cannot fully respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. ‘

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.220(c), plaintiff has made a reasonable and good-faith effort
to obtain the requested information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, and ”

‘KAlnjured\19340\plc\og tsp SLAKBY.wpd 8 asbbelieves that there is no further relevant and/or responsive information to disclose at this time
that is not equally available to defendant.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that it seeks information protected fr